read_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait: only ACL-visible pages are readable, implying permission scoping. It omits failure behavior (missing path, restricted page) and whether the full page or fragment is returned, though the output schema may cover the return shape.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the core action and appends the fragment nuance. No filler; every clause carries 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential surface: what it reads, the visibility constraint, and the fragment addressing scheme. Only error/permission-failure behavior is left unstated.

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% for the single required `path` parameter. The description partially compensates by documenting the `path#n` fragment syntax used to read a slice of a long page, but it doesn't describe the base path format or how paths are obtained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one ACL-visible wiki page'), which clearly separates it from list_pages and search_brain. It doesn't name a sibling directly, but the resource scope is 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?

It implies a usage path by explaining that a search hit's `fragment` should be passed to read that slice of a long page, which connects it to search_brain. However, it never states when to prefer this over list_pages or describe_entity, nor any preconditions.

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