wiki_get_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Read a wiki page'), which implies non-destructive behavior. It also specifies the return fields (id, title, etc.), giving useful context about what data to expect. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the path is case-sensitive.

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 perfectly concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose and parameter usage, while the second sentence efficiently lists return fields. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 simplicity (single parameter, read-only operation) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, parameter meaning with example, and return values. The main gap is missing behavioral details like error handling or authentication, but for a straightforward read tool, this is reasonably comprehensive.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate fully. It provides essential semantic context: the 'path' parameter should be a wiki page path, with an explicit example ('desks/geopolitical-and-security') that clarifies the expected format. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, making the parameter meaning clear.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Read a wiki page') and resource ('by its path'), distinguishing it from siblings like create, list, move, search, and update operations. It uses precise language that immediately communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 implies usage through the example path format ('desks/geopolitical-and-security'), suggesting this tool is for retrieving specific pages when the path is known. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like wiki_search_pages (for finding pages without known paths) or wiki_list_pages (for browsing). The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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