Read Company Wiki

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context about the wiki's content and the index page behavior, which enriches the agent's understanding beyond the structured annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by a concrete instruction. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read tool with one optional parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is quite complete. It explains the purpose, content, and initial navigation step. It does not describe the exact return format, but given no output schema and the simplicity, this is a minor 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 coverage is 100%, so the slug parameter is fully described. The description adds meaning by explaining that slug="index" lists available pages, which is a usage nuance not captured in the parameter description. This goes beyond the schema's baseline.

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 states the tool reads a page from the company's private memory wiki, specifying the content type (preferences, decisions, people, Q&A). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like read_wiki or search_company_wiki, but the phrase 'company's private memory wiki' sufficiently indicates a distinct resource.

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 gives a direct usage instruction: call with slug="index" first to list available pages. This guides the agent's first step. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the index-first pattern is actionable and useful.

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