wiki_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the read-only nature, the returned content ('frontmatter + body'), and the concept_id path format. It does not address not-found behavior or how agent_id scopes the read, but for a simple read tool with an output schema this is minimally adequate.

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: first the action/resource, then the parameter detail. There is no filler and every clause adds useful information.

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?

Although the tool is simple and has an output schema, the definition omits the meaning of the required agent_id and offers no usage guidance relative to wiki_search. The concept_id format note helps, but the description is not complete enough for confident correct invocation on its own.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains concept_id with the format and example ('projects/x'), but says nothing about agent_id, a required parameter. Half the input contract is left unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read one concept (frontmatter + body)'. This clearly distinguishes it from write/search/delete siblings like wiki_write_concept and wiki_search. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it stops 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus wiki_search or wiki_write_concept, and no mention of prerequisites such as having a known concept_id. The phrase 'one concept' implies exact-id reads, but the selection logic is left entirely to inference.

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