get_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses side effects such as writing the body to a file via output_file, downloading and rewriting images with include_images, and the images_dir default. It does not explicitly state that the page is not modified or cover error cases, but the key non-obvious behaviors are covered.

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 a well-structured docstring: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean Args list. Every line adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 covers all six parameters and their side effects, and the output schema handles return values. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives and does not state that it is a non-mutating read operation, but these are minor given the parameter detail and 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains every parameter: page_id as numeric, include_body default, body_format options, output_file behavior, include_images conditionality, and images_dir default. This adds far more meaning than the bare schema properties.

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 'Get a Confluence page by ID,' which is a specific verb plus resource. It differentiates from siblings like search_pages (search by query) and get_page_sections (list sections) by focusing on fetching a single full page by its unique ID.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit. The description does not mention when to prefer this over search_pages or get_page_tree, nor any exclusions or alternatives. It provides parameter-level guidance (e.g., use output_file to keep LLM context clean) but no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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