Read a page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description still adds real behavior beyond that: no truncation, the path allowlist, and the three error conditions (outside the set, path escape, nonexistent). That is useful but it is largely a restatement of the access contract rather than deeper operational context such as size limits or encoding.

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?

Front-loaded with the return guarantee, then the path constraint, then errors, then sibling routing — a sensible order with no filler. The standalone "Read-only." sentence is mildly redundant against readOnlyHint but cheap enough to keep.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers what an agent must know: what comes back, what paths are legal, and what happens on failure. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior on very large files or binary content.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the sole path parameter with an example. The description adds the allowed-directory constraint and the requirement that the path be relative to the sessionwiki folder, which is genuinely beyond the schema, but it does not add format or edge-case detail beyond that single constraint.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Return the full text of one file") plus two distinguishing properties: unmodified and not truncated. That clearly separates it from the snippet-returning siblings wiki_query and wiki_search without opening their schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes path discovery to wiki_query, wiki_search or wiki_list_sources, making the division of labor between discovery tools and this single-file reader unambiguous. An agent knows to search first and read second.

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