get_wiki

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Fetch' (implied read-only) and describes the content as 'free, community-vetted', but does not mention permissions, rate limits, pagination, error behavior, or return format. Minimal behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences that immediately state the function and purpose. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 (a single-repo fetch with no output schema), and the description explains what is returned ('wiki content + tags'). It defines the 'wiki' term to avoid confusion. Minor gaps (no mention of return encoding or errors) are acceptable given the simplicity.

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 description does not explain the three parameters (platform, owner, name). The only hint is 'one repo', which implies owner/name, but no explicit parameter semantics are given. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'Tier-1 wiki content + tags' for a single repo, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_repos or list_reviews. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for one repo' provides clear context that this tool is for fetching wiki content for a specific repository, not for searching or listing. It lacks formal exclusions or alternative mentions, but the scope is evident enough.

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