get_pagebreak_position

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

The description simply restates the tool's action ('Fetch') and adds no behavioral details beyond the annotations. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not mention return value, error behavior, or any edge cases, contributing no additional transparency.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single five-word sentence with the verb 'Fetch' front-loaded. It contains no filler or redundant information.

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 the low complexity of fetching a single pagebreak position and the comprehensive schema and annotations, the minimal description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not explicitly state the return value, which could be inferred but is not clearly disclosed.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions for document_id, position_id, and kb_document_type. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so it relies entirely on the schema to convey parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('pagebreak position'), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like list_pagebreak_positions, create_pagebreak_position, update_pagebreak_position, and delete_pagebreak_position. It unambiguously indicates a single-record retrieval operation.

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 list_pagebreak_positions. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, selection criteria, or scenarios where this tool should be preferred.

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