wiki_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation ('read a specific page') and what is returned ('links and backlinks'), but doesn't address error cases, authentication, or response structure. This is adequate for a simple getter but lacks depth.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and add a usage note. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers purpose, usage, and key return aspects. It could be more detailed about failure behavior, but overall it's sufficiently complete for straightforward invocation.

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% and the page_id description already explains its provenance ('from wiki_search'). The description's 'by ID' reinforces but doesn't add much beyond the schema, so 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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Get a wiki page by ID') and adds scope ('including its links and backlinks'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like wiki_search and wiki_outdated.

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 second sentence provides explicit usage context ('Use this to read a specific page and see what it links to and what links to it'), but it doesn't mention when to avoid this tool or explicitly name alternatives, though the schema's reference to wiki_search implies a prerequisite.

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