page_reels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving data ('Get page reels') but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. The phrase 'use reels_page_id now' hints at a parameter requirement, but this contradicts the input schema which has no parameters, creating confusion about the tool's 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 brief with two short phrases, but it's not well-structured or front-loaded. The first part 'Get page reels by page id' is clear, but the second part 'use reels_page_id now' is ambiguous and doesn't add value, reducing conciseness. It could be more streamlined by removing the confusing second phrase.

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 tool has no input parameters and no output schema, the description should fully explain what the tool does and what it returns. It states the purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like data format, pagination, or error handling. The confusing additional phrase further undermines completeness, making it inadequate for a tool that might return complex data like 'reels'.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is appropriate here. However, the phrase 'use reels_page_id now' could be misinterpreted as a parameter hint, but since there are no parameters, this doesn't detract significantly from the baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get page reels by page id', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'profile_reels' or 'page_videos', leaving ambiguity about what specifically differentiates 'page reels' from other reel or video retrieval tools. The phrase 'use reels_page_id now' is confusing and doesn't clarify the purpose further.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'profile_reels' or 'page_videos', nor does it specify any prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage. The vague directive 'use reels_page_id now' adds confusion rather than clarity, failing to offer meaningful usage instructions.

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