read_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the L2 classification (suggesting a tiered access model), the exact-title matching behavior, and the section-scoping capability. It doesn't detail error behavior for nonexistent titles, but for a simple read with an output schema and no safety-critical behavior, this is largely sufficient. A 'read' operation's mutability is implicit in the name.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: a one-line purpose, context positioning, title-format clarification with examples, and a compact args block. Zero waste, well front-loaded. The markdown structure mirrors the args list cleanly.

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?

For a simple read tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It adds positioning among siblings, exact-title requirements, and section behavior. Minor gap: no statement about behavior when section doesn't exist or when title is invalid, and the L2 reference is unexplained, but overall the tool is adequately specified for selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does. It explains that title must be an exact wiki title with concrete format examples, and explains section is optional and returns just that section. Both parameters get semantic context beyond bare names/null defaults. It doesn't specify section heading exactness rules, but the core semantics are well covered.

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?

The description clearly states the tool reads the full markdown of one wiki page or one of its sections, using a specific verb ('read') with a clear resource ('wiki page'). It gives concrete example titles ('Noise TOP', 'CHOP Execute DAT') and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing search_manual and browse_manual as preceding steps.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use after search_manual or browse_manual to get surrounding context.' It also establishes the exact-title matching requirement and gives examples of valid titles, which prevents common agent errors like fuzzy matching. No exclusions needed since the tool is a straightforward read.

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