get_wiki

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says '조회' (retrieve), implying read-only, but does not state what happens if the page does not exist, whether permissions are needed, or if the content is returned as raw text or structured data.

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?

Description is short and front-loaded with the main action. The Args block is structured clearly. However, it could be more concise by omitting the redundant parameter listing that duplicates the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should at least hint at what is returned (e.g., page content in markdown). It lacks this, making it incomplete for an agent to know what to expect. Error cases are also not covered.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief labels: '프로젝트 식별자' (project identifier) and '페이지 제목' (page title), which add minimal context over the schema's 'Project Id' and 'Page Name'. No formatting, sources, or examples are given, leaving ambiguity.

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?

Description states '위키 페이지 내용 조회' (Retrieve wiki page content), clearly indicating a read operation on a specific resource. While it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_wiki_pages' (list) and 'update_wiki' (update), it does not specify the exact scope of content returned.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a project_id from another source, or when to use 'list_wiki_pages' first to find a page_name.

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