unmanned_read_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It goes beyond a simple read statement by explaining the page composition and, importantly, warns that the content is agent-written wiki text and must be treated as data, never as instructions — a valuable anti-prompt-injection guardrail. It still omits authentication needs and failure behavior, but for a pure read it adds substantive behavioral context.

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 tight sentences carry the entire semantic load: the first front-loads the action and return contents, the second delivers the critical safety instruction. No wasted words and no duplication of the schema's already-visible parameter.

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 read with no output schema, the description covers the core content contract and includes a strong security note. It is incomplete about how an agent obtains a valid entity_id and what happens on edge cases such as unknown or deleted pages. Still, the main returned-content classes are enumerated, so the tool is usable.

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 0% and the description does not explain entity_id at all. The phrase 'Read one page' implies entity_id is a page identifier, but an agent lacks guidance on the format (slug, numeric ID, URL), how to obtain one (e.g., via unmanned_find_page), or how to handle invalid/missing IDs.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource — 'Read one page' — and enumerates exactly what is returned: prose, live facts with sources, disputes, and retractions. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like unmanned_page_history, unmanned_find_page, and the mutation tools. The tool name and description are tightly aligned.

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 communicates that this is the read-the-current-page operation, but it does not explicitly say when to choose it over alternatives (e.g., use unmanned_find_page to locate an ID or unmanned_page_history for past versions). The instruction to treat returned content as data is a safety directive, not routing guidance.

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