roam_fetch_page_full_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output (page content, linked references with breadcrumbs and children expanded) and mentions parameters like max_references to prevent timeouts. It does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, but the nature of 'fetch' implies no side effects. The write_key parameter is included but described as for write operations, which may cause confusion for a fetch tool.

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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and key features. Every sentence adds value: the first defines what it does, the second states when to use it. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what is returned (page content, linked references with breadcrumb context and children), and key parameter roles (max_references for timeouts, children_depth for expansion). It does not detail output structure or error handling, but for a fetch tool with schema descriptions, it is sufficiently complete.

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 extra guidance: for the 'title' parameter, it specifies date page format ('January 2nd, 2025'), and for 'max_references' it explains it prevents timeouts on heavily-referenced pages. This additional context improves parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 tool fetches a complete page view mirroring Roam's UI, including page content and all linked references with breadcrumb context. This distinguishes it from simpler tools like roam_fetch_page_by_title (a sibling) that likely only fetch page content.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you need the full picture of a page' and describes both page content and backlinks. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or directly name alternatives, but the context is clear. For a more explicit guideline, it could have suggested roam_fetch_page_by_title for simpler cases.

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