get_project_wiki_page

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get a specific wiki page' without explaining return format, pagination, authentication needs, or the effect of render_html. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

While concise at one sentence, the description is under-specified and omits critical details. Conciseness should not come at the expense of completeness, especially with multiple parameters.

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?

The description fails to provide adequate context for a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It does not explain how to use the parameters or what to expect in return, making it nearly useless for an agent.

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 adds no meaning to any of the 4 parameters (slug, version, project_id, render_html). The agent has no information on what each parameter controls or which are required.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'specific wiki page for a GitLab project', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_project_wiki_pages (listing) and edit_project_wiki_page (editing). However, it does not specify that the page is identified by slug, which is implicit in parameters.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_group_wiki_page or list_project_wiki_pages. The description lacks context for selecting this tool over similar ones.

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