依路徑讀取 Wiki.js 頁面

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuine context beyond that: exactly what is returned (Markdown source plus metadata), the acceptable path forms, and that maxChars/contentOffset exist for paging through long pages. It omits error behavior (page not found, locale mismatch) and whether the URL form is validated against the same site, which keeps it at a mid score.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and return payload, then path formatting, then paging. Every sentence carries information that is not duplicated in the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes responsibility for describing the return value, naming both the Markdown source and the metadata. Paging and accepted path forms are covered, so the remaining gap is only in failure modes and permission requirements, which is modest for a read-only tool.

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 every parameter is already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds a concrete example path with Chinese characters and clarifies the no-.md rule, and it frames maxChars plus contentOffset as a paired paging mechanism, but it does not state defaults or interaction rules beyond what the schema says.

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 and resource: reads a Wiki.js page by path, returning Markdown raw content plus metadata. That is clear and actionable, but it never names the sibling it should be preferred over (wikijs_get_page_by_id for ID lookups, wikijs_search_pages for discovery), so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description explains that path may be a slug or a full URL and that long pages can be read in segments, which effectively hints at when the tool applies. It contains no explicit when-not guidance and no comparison to wikijs_get_page_by_id, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone whether a path or an ID is the right key.

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