infra_read_wiki

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states it 'reads' a page, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavior like error handling, output format, authentication requirements, or idempotency.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence immediately stating the core functionality and the second providing context. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read tool with two well-documented parameters, the description covers purpose and utility. However, it lacks details about the output (format, structure) and error scenarios, which would be important given the lack of an output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, such as examples or format details.

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 clearly states the action ('Read') and the specific resource ('a page from the infocepo.com wiki'), and provides a use case ('discovering new services, configurations, or documentation'). It distinguishes from siblings like infra_list_services but does not explicitly differentiate from infra_parse_wiki.

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 implies usage when needing to discover wiki content, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives. No exclusion criteria or comparisons to siblings are given.

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