get_wiki_section

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

The description discloses that the tool defaults to 8000 characters to save tokens and that limit/offset can be used to retrieve the full section. This adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, which already signals safety. No contradiction with the annotation.

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?

The description is two short sentences, with the primary action stated first and supporting details about pagination in the second. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

The description covers the core retrieval behavior and pagination effectively. Since an output schema exists, return format is already defined, and the annotations cover read-only status. The tool is simple enough that this description is sufficient, though it could reference how to discover section keys via sibling tools.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for key, limit, and offset. The description's mention of defaulting to 8000 chars and using offset essentially restates schema information, but adds the rationale of saving tokens. This minor extra context slightly elevates it above baseline, but the schema carries most of the semantic weight.

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 retrieves markdown content of a wiki section, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_wiki_sections or browse_wiki, though the mention of 'markdown content' implies content retrieval.

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 description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It only discusses limit and offset parameters, which are usage details for the tool itself, not comparisons with siblings. No when-to-use or exclusions are stated.

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