get-page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns page title, ID, content model, latest revision ID/timestamp, and raw wikitext. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., missing pages) or authentication needs. For a read operation, this is decent but not exhaustive.

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 three sentences, each providing essential information: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. 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?

The description covers the core purpose, the return data (important since there is no output schema), and the main usage context. It is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool without requiring additional details.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters (wiki, title, include_html), so the description doesn't need to add much. The description mentions 'full wikitext source' but does not elaborate on the parameters themselves, so it stays at the 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's function: 'Retrieve a wiki page's full wikitext source and metadata' and lists specific return values. It also distinguishes from siblings by advising to use it 'BEFORE update-page', making it clear this is for reading existing content.

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 explicitly says 'Call this BEFORE update-page to read the current content you want to edit.', providing a direct usage workflow and naming an alternative (update-page). This gives clear when-to-use guidance.

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