Get wiki page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds substantial context beyond these: no wiki index or search, content not exposed by the API, 404 meaning an invalid id or disabled wiki, and no sub-pages or revisions. These details are critical and not derivable from annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, logical sections for limits, use cases, and pitfalls, and no redundant sentences. Every detail earns its place, and the length is justified by the tool's unusual constraints.

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 fully covers the tool's context: what it returns, what it cannot do, how to handle errors, and related tools. Given that an output schema exists (indicated by context), the lack of explicit return-type explanation is not a gap. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with a detailed description of wiki_page_id, including its source (page URL) and a warning to never guess it. The tool description reiterates this information without adding new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Read a wiki page's identity and project — NOT its content.' It explicitly distinguishes the tool's scope from content retrieval and clarifies the response shape. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that handle attachments or work packages.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'use it to confirm which page a URL points at, to get the project a page belongs to, and as the step before fetching its files.' It also provides an explicit alternative for reading content: 'ask the user to paste it or open the page in the browser.' Cross-references to list_attachments and get_project_metadata further guide tool selection.

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