wiki_page

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses essentially nothing: not whether the call is read-only (only implied by "正文"), what happens when the name/path/URL does not resolve, or what format the returned body takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and the accepted identifier forms; nothing is padded. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but that is a completeness problem rather than verbosity.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what comes back (raw text, markdown, structured page) and how lookup failures appear. Neither is covered, and the absence of output schema means the return shape is entirely undocumented.

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% and the single parameter already documents the name/path/full-URL forms verbatim; the description merely repeats that list. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work and the description adds no matching rules, URL normalization behavior, or precedence between the three forms.

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 "WikiMLake page body" does name the resource (a wiki page's body content) and hints at accepted identifier forms, but the phrasing is terse and does not distinguish it from the sibling wiki_search — an agent cannot tell from the text alone whether this fetches content or searches it. The verb is implied rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The closest alternative, wiki_search, is never mentioned, so the agent must guess that wiki_page is for retrieving a known page while wiki_search is for discovery. No prerequisites or failure conditions are stated.

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