get-wiki-page

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the returned fields (version, subject, body mimeType/content, referrers, files, images), which matters since there is no output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then a two-item endpoint list, then a compact return summary. No wasted sentences and easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields, and the endpoint variants clarify calling conventions. Minor gaps remain around permissions or error behavior, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: wikiId is not merely "optional" — supplying it switches the request to the /wikis/{wiki-id}/pages/{page-id} path. That scoping semantics is a genuine addition.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get wiki page details including body content") plus the exact endpoints used. It's clearly distinct from get-wiki-page-list, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The two enumerated endpoint variants tell the agent how parameter combinations change behavior, which is genuinely useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings like get-wiki-page-tree or get-wiki-page-list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.