getWikiPage

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

The description 'Show wiki page' is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, so no contradiction. However, it adds no behavioral detail beyond that trivial read action. It does not disclose that the response format is determined by the 'format' parameter (json/xml), or that query param 'include' can fetch attachments. Annotations cover safety only, so the description should provide context about output and optional behavior; it does not.

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 only three words ('Show wiki page') and is under-specified, not concisely informative. It is a fragment, not a complete sentence, and while it is short, it does not earn its place because it conveys almost no useful information. Structure is front-loaded but the content is minimal to the point of being unhelpful.

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 has nested objects, required parameters, enums for format and include, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention that it retrieves a specific page by title and project, that format controls the response serialization, or that include can return attachments. An agent would need to inspect the entire schema to understand how to call it correctly, and even then the description provides no context on expected behavior. This is far from complete.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does nothing of the sort. It does not mention projectId, wikiPageTitle, format, or include. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds zero meaning beyond the schema, and the nested required structure (pathParams/queryParams) is not addressed. This is a serious gap for a 2-parameter tool.

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 'Show wiki page' is extremely terse and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like getWikiPages (plural) or getWikiPageByVersion. It states a verb and a resource but lacks specificity about which page (by title and project) and how it differs from listing or version retrieval. This is minimal and vague, not a clear, specific purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it fetches a single page by project and title, nor does it reference getWikiPages for listing or getWikiPageByVersion for historical versions. No usage context or exclusions are provided, so the agent receives no help in selecting the correct tool.

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