page_getData

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: three retrieval modes, wildcard/negative index support, default maxBytes with truncation, and the truncated flag. It doesn't cover error handling or permissions, but these are reasonable omissions for a getter 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 concise and well-structured with enumerated modes. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Information is dense yet easy to parse.

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?

For a getter with no required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers how to invoke it and what to expect (data object with possiblly truncated flag). It could be improved by specifying the return shape or error scenarios, but it's sufficient for an AI agent.

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 low (25% only for connection), but the description adds rich semantics for path, paths, and maxBytes, explaining wildcard syntax, negative indexing, default value, and truncation behavior. The connection parameter relies on its schema description.

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 retrieves the current page's data object and details three usage modes. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like page_expectData, the purpose is well-defined and unambiguous.

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 clear guidance on when to use each mode (no param for full tree, path for single sub-path, paths for multi-path projection with wildcards). It recommends paths for large objects and explains the truncation behavior, but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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