read_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add useful context with 'ACL-visible,' indicating access-control filtering applies. It does not disclose behaviors like not-found handling or permission requirements, but for a simple read operation this is a reasonable minimal disclosure.

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, compact sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the core action and resource are front-loaded.

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 an output schema present and only one required parameter, the description does not need to explain return values extensively. Still, the lack of path format details and the absence of any sibling guidance leave meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how and when to call this tool.

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%, and the description does not explain the meaning or expected format of the 'path' parameter. The phrase 'wiki page' only weakly suggests that path refers to a page identifier, leaving the agent to infer the actual path semantics.

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 ('Read') and the resource ('wiki page'), and the qualifier 'one ACL-visible' narrows it to a single page. It is distinct enough from siblings like search_brain and list_entities, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 the tool should be used when an agent needs to read a single ACL-visible wiki page, and it hints at a boundary via 'one.' However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool should be preferred for searching or listing.

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