get_wiki_page

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get details of a specific wiki page' essentially restates the tool name and does not disclose read-only behavior, auth expectations, error behavior for missing pages, or what 'details' includes. The only inference is that 'Get' implies a safe read operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is efficient and immediately states the action and object. It is slightly under-specified in content, but as a concise statement of purpose it earns a high score for conciseness and structure.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining return values, failure modes, or required context, but it does none of this. An agent knows it can fetch a wiki page but not what 'details' means, what happens if the page does not exist, or whether project_id is needed for disambiguation. This is a meaningful completeness gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both slug and project_id. The description adds no new semantic detail about the parameters beyond the schema, but it does reinforce that the tool targets a single page rather than a list. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('details of a specific wiki page'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_wiki_pages (list) and create/update/delete_wiki_page (write operations). No ambiguity remains about what operation this tool performs.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that list_wiki_pages should be used to discover pages, nor does it state prerequisites like needing the slug or the optional project_id context. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and parameter schema.

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