kb_read_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return payload (markdown text, resolved outgoing links, backlinks), which matters given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about missing-page behavior, permissions, or whether link resolution is expensive.

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?

Two short sentences, action first, return contents second, with zero filler. Every clause carries information and the example id is embedded inline rather than in a separate note.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and the return shape well. The remaining gap is discovery of valid page ids and error handling, which are minor here.

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 0% and the single required page_id is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It partially does by showing the expected id shape ('wiki/overview'), which tells the agent this is a path-like slug rather than an opaque UUID, but nothing is said about how to obtain a valid id.

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 ('Read one page by id') and gives a concrete id example ('wiki/overview'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool fetches. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like kb_search or kb_build_context, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 when-to-use instruction, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as kb_search (find a page) or kb_build_context (assemble multi-page context). The verb 'Read' implies the direct-fetch case, but nothing routes the agent among the 11 siblings.

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