read_wiki_contents

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only says 'View', implying a read-only operation. It does not disclose what content is viewed (e.g., wiki vs README), error behavior, or output format. The lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb. It is appropriately brief for a simple tool, though it could have included more specific terminology like 'wiki' to be more precise.

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?

Given the tool name references 'wiki' but the description says 'documentation', there is ambiguity in the resource scope. The description does not clarify its relationship to sibling tools or mention any limitations, making it incomplete for reliable selection even though an output schema exists.

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 fully describes the sole parameter repoName with a clear example. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 it 'View documentation about a GitHub repository', providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like read_wiki_structure, which likely reads the wiki structure rather than contents.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tool names suggest a wiki-specific context, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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