wiki_page_get_by_slug

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only states the operation without disclosing behavioral details such as required permissions, error handling, or whether it is strictly read-only. The verb 'Get' implies non-destructive behavior, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 sentence with no redundant information, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose.

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?

While the tool is simple, the lack of an output schema and annotations means the description should provide more context about the return value or error cases. The existing description covers the core purpose but leaves some gaps.

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 meaning to the 'slug' parameter by noting it is 'project-scoped', which explains the need for the 'project' parameter. However, it does not elaborate on the format of the slug or the exact meaning of the project integer, leaving some 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?

The description clearly identifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('wiki page'), and the unique key ('project-scoped slug instead of its numeric id'), distinguishing it from the sibling wiki_page_get tool that likely uses numeric IDs.

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 phrase 'instead of its numeric id' provides clear guidance on when to use this tool—when a slug is available—and implies the alternative method for ID-based lookups. It does not explicitly name the sibling tool, but the contrast is sufficient.

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