Get Wiki Page

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond stating the action. While not contradictory, it does not elaborate on behavior such as handling of missing slugs or version semantics.

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 extremely concise (5 words), which is efficient but comes at the cost of providing necessary detail. It is not structured, but for a simple get operation, it is minimally acceptable.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the role of optional parameters or the return value. Sibling tools are not mentioned to provide comparative context.

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%, yet the description only mentions 'by slug', ignoring version, project_id, and render_html. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, which itself provides no descriptions. This is a significant gap.

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 verb (Get) and resource (wiki page) and identifies the identifier (slug). It effectively distinguishes from list and create/delete wiki tools, though it could explicitly mention the project context to differentiate from get_group_wiki_page.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gitlab_list_wiki_pages or gitlab_get_group_wiki_page. There is no mention of project vs group wiki distinction, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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