get_wiki_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a read operation ('Get the full content') but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the structure of the returned data beyond 'full content'.

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 front-loads the verb and resource. It is efficient, though it lacks a structured breakdown of details such as return format, which could be added without much overhead.

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 no output schema, the description should compensate with details about the returned content. It states 'full content' but does not specify what that includes (text, metadata, formatting). For a simple retrieval tool, it is minimally adequate but incomplete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema: the parameter 'wiki_id' is simply restated as part of the action, without any new detail on format or constraints.

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 action 'get', the resource 'wiki page', and specifies 'full content' and 'by ID', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling 'list_wiki_pages' and other 'get_*' tools.

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 implies usage when a wiki page ID is known, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_wiki_pages' or other 'get_*' tools, and no exclusions are stated.

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