get-page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses returned fields (title, ID, content model, revision info, wikitext), which is the main behavioral context. It doesn't state whether the operation is read-only (implicit from 'Retrieve' and 'get'), whether it requires authentication, or error behavior for missing pages – gaps for a read tool with no 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return contents, second sentence provides a critical usage directive. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema and a simple read operation, the description adequately covers what is returned and when to use it. Minor gaps remain around permissions and error handling, but for a 3-param getter with full schema coverage, it is nearly complete.

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 parameter documentation is fully handled by the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details (e.g., title format, wiki name default behavior), but baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (wiki page's full wikitext source and metadata) and enumerates exactly what is returned. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like get-revision and get-page-history by emphasizing 'full source' and 'metadata'.

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?

Explicitly says to call before update-page to read current content, giving a clear workflow context. It doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives like get-revision for just a revision, but the primary usage is well-articulated.

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