Get Wiki Page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds detailed behavioral context: effect is read, required authentication, human approval not needed, and explicit failure handling instructions. No contradictions.

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 clear sections (Use when, Do not use when, Requires, etc.), but it is somewhat verbose and includes some redundancy (e.g., 'Effect: read' is already evident). Still, it is organized and front-loaded with key guidance.

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 tool's complexity (versioning, multiple failure modes, dependency on project selection), the description is comprehensive. It covers authentication, human approval, error recovery, and interaction with proposals/drafts. Output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration.

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 only 33%, with only projectId having a description. The description mentions reading current or historical versions, implying the role of the 'version' parameter, but does not explicitly define pageId or version semantics beyond the schema. Partial compensation but insufficient detail.

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 states the tool reads the current or a historical PageVersion, including specific behavior for root Brief reads. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_wiki_pages and create_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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections provide clear context for when to invoke this tool, including indications of alternative tools and conditions that preclude use (e.g., unresolved project scope, user declined).

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