bwiki_get_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get the Wiki source content' without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, whether the page must exist, what happens on error, or the exact return format. The description is too minimal to provide meaningful transparency beyond the basic action.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately front-loaded for a simple getter tool.

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?

The tool is simple with one well-documented parameter and no output schema. However, the description lacks any mention of the return value, error handling, or behavioral context. It is adequate for a basic getter but not fully complete given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 'pageName' parameter described as '页面名称' (page name). The description adds no additional semantic meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema is self-explanatory, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves the Wiki source content of a BWIKI page, using a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('Wiki源码内容'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bwiki_snapshot (which likely takes a snapshot) and bwiki_get_categories (which gets categories).

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 for getting wiki source content but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bwiki_snapshot or bwiki_evaluate. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so it relies on the tool's name and description to infer the appropriate context.

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