get_wiki

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what happens with an unknown wikiId, whether the page body or just metadata comes back, or access requirements.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so there is nothing to trim. The problem is the opposite of verbosity: under-specification rather than wasted words.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the caller still cannot tell what the response contains, since there is no output schema to document return fields. "Information" leaves the return shape — metadata vs. page content, included fields — entirely unknown.

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% with a single required wikiId, so the schema carries the parameter burden and the baseline is 3. The description's phrase "a specific wiki page" only restates that a single identifier is expected, adding no format or sourcing 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 pairs a verb ("Returns") with a resource ("a specific wiki page"), and the singular phrasing loosely distinguishes it from the sibling get_wiki_pages. But "information" is vague — it doesn't say whether that means metadata, body content, or both — so the purpose is only minimally pinned down.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_wiki_pages, get_wikis_count, or get_document, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage 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.