get_project_wiki_page

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'get' implying read, but does not clarify what is returned (content, metadata, etc.), whether render_html affects output, or version behavior.

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 very concise at one sentence, but it sacrifices clarity and completeness. It is not well-structured to convey essential information beyond the basic purpose.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description completely fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's behavior, expected inputs, or return value.

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%. The description does not explain any parameter meaning or usage. Key parameters like slug (likely URL-encoded title), render_html, and version are left entirely undocumented.

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 (Get), resource (specific wiki page), and scope (for a GitLab project). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list, create, edit, delete, which have different verbs.

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 guidelines provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_group_wiki_page, or any prerequisites such as requiring project_id or slug format. The description does not address exclusions or context.

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