wiki_read_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what the tool returns (full markdown, metadata, links, source references), which is valuable for a read operation. However, it does not mention error behavior or permission requirements, leaving some room for interpretation.

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 concise and front-loaded with the action verb. Two sentences contain all essential information without superfluous words. Every sentence adds value, making it an exemplar of efficient writing.

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?

For a simple read tool with two well-documented parameters, the description specifies return values (markdown, metadata, links, references) even though no output schema exists. It lacks only minor details like error handling or response shape nuances, but overall it is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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 input schema already provides full coverage (100%) with descriptions for both parameters, including an example for slug. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the action (read) and resource (wiki page) with a specific identifier (slug). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wiki_search (which finds pages) and wiki_index_view (which views index) by focusing on reading a single page's full content.

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 context implies use when you have a slug and want page content, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like wiki_search. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage inferable but not clearly directed.

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