get_wiki

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add genuinely useful behavioral context—toc_only 'saves thousands of tokens' and section extracts only that portion—which tells the agent about output size/cost. But it says nothing about error behavior for missing pages, permissions required, or pagination/truncation semantics beyond what the schema already notes.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then the optional modes. No filler or redundancy.

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 5-parameter read tool with rich schema descriptions, the description covers the core mode-selection semantics an agent needs. The lack of an output schema is a minor gap since the description does indicate what each mode returns (content, TOC, section), though it does not describe the return shape itself.

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 every parameter (slug, section, toc_only, max_length, project_id) is already documented in the schema. The description meaningfully links the parameters to the tool's modes, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 (Get) and resource (wiki page content) plus the three distinct retrieval modes it supports: full content, toc_only, and a specific section. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_wikis, create_wiki, and update_wiki.

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 usage context by enumerating the three selectable modes, so an agent can infer that toc_only is for structure and section is for targeted extraction. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over list_wikis or how the modes relate to required parameters.

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