wiki_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the return is frontmatter plus body, but the shared-scope/namespace behavior it hints at is already detailed in the schema, so it adds only modest context.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return shape, followed by prerequisite routing and the shared-scope tip. No filler or redundancy.

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?

It is a read-only tool with no output schema, and the description covers the action, the returned content type, and how to obtain the required page_path. Nothing essential is missing, though a note on behavior when a page is absent would complete it.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, including scope's agent/shared semantics and agent_id's ignore rule for shared writes. The description's mention of scope="shared" merely echoes the schema rather than adding new syntax or constraints; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a wiki page') and even specifies the return payload ('frontmatter + body'). It contrasts with the discovery-oriented siblings wiki_ls/wiki_search, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to wiki_ls or wiki_search to obtain a page path first, which is exactly the prerequisite an agent needs. It also explains the shared-scope usage, though it gives no explicit 'when not to use this' beyond that routing.

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