wiki_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully assumes the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses truncation at 200 lines without a `section`, the presence of `truncated` and `toc` in the response, and the case-insensitive partial match for `section`. All key traits are transparently communicated.

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 concise with two well-structured paragraphs. The first paragraph states core functionality and the multi-page option; the second provides the recommended workflow. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded.

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 read tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential behaviors: single/multi-page reads, section navigation, truncation, and line-based paging fallback. It also mentions response fields (`truncated`, `toc`), making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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%, so each parameter is described in the schema. The tool description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the workflow (e.g., using `pages` to save round trips) and the behavioral context (e.g., truncation, section navigation). This adds significant value, moving beyond the baseline of 3.

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?

Clearly states it reads wiki pages, distinguishes between single and multiple pages via `page` and `pages` parameters, and differentiates from sibling tools like `wiki_search` (search) and `wiki_write` (write). The verb "read" is specific, and the resource "wiki pages" is well-defined.

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?

Provides an explicit recommended workflow (1-2-3) for navigating large pages using `wiki_search` and `section`. It also advises when to use `section` to avoid truncation and mentions the round-trip savings of the `pages` array. This gives clear context for using the tool vs alternatives.

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