get_wiki

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read but never states that this is non-mutating, says nothing about what happens when the wikiId does not exist, what access rights are needed, or what the returned "information" comprises. Only the bare minimum is conveyed.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded; nothing is padded or redundant. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects minimal content rather than disciplined editing.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only source of behavioral and return-shape information — and it provides neither. Combined with the wiki-vs-wiki-page ambiguity against four sibling wiki tools, an agent lacks what it needs to call this confidently.

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?

There is exactly one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema itself defines wikiId as "Wiki ID" with string/number types. The description adds no format, range, or identifier-source detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Returns information about a specific wiki page" gives a verb and a resource, but "information" is generic and the resource is ambiguous: the tool name and required param (wikiId) suggest a wiki entity, while the description says "wiki page" — a distinction that matters because siblings get_wiki_pages, get_wikis_count, add_wiki and update_wiki exist. No sibling is named or contrasted.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no indication of how it differs from get_wiki_pages or get_wikis_count, and no mention of prerequisites or retrieval scope. An agent must infer the selection rule entirely from the tool name.

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