read_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'read', implying a non-destructive operation, but fails to specify authentication requirements, conflict resolution if multiple identifiers are provided, or any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the essential information for a simple read tool.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter guidance, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what is returned (e.g., full document content vs. metadata), how errors are handled, or how to choose between this and sibling tools like 'search_in_subtree'. The description is too terse to be fully operational.

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 description adds minimal meaning over the schema by stating parameters are identifiers ('by path, title, or source page ID'). However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description does not elaborate on each parameter's format, valid values, or precedence when multiple are given. It partially compensates but remains vague.

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 explicitly states the action ('read'), the resource ('wiki document'), and the allowed identifiers ('path, title, or source page ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_wiki' or 'browse_tree' which have different purposes.

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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or best practices for choosing among the three identifiers. It simply states what the tool does without contextual advice.

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