skims_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention what the normalized static page detail includes, whether the handle must match a current SKIMS page, error behavior for invalid handles, or whether any caching or rate limits apply. 'Returns normalized static page detail' hints at transformation but omits substantive behavioral context.

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 three sentences and front-loads the primary action and resource. The sentence about the storefront URL being fixed server-side is useful and earns its place. It could be tightened, but it wastes no words and is appropriately brief for a simple single-parameter tool.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and input semantics. However, with no annotations, the absence of any detail about the returned structure, error cases, or expected handle format leaves an agent with only partial guidance. It is minimally viable but not fully 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 description coverage is 100% because 'handle' is the only parameter and it's described as 'Page handle'. The description adds that the handle is for a SKIMS page and that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, which slightly clarifies that the handle is not a full URL. But it doesn't add much beyond the schema's own description, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving a SKIMS static page for a given page handle, using a specific verb ('Get') and a resource ('SKIMS static page'). It also notes the storefront URL is fixed server-side, which helps distinguish it from other page-related tools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like skims_pages or skims_store, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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 implies usage by saying it returns detail for one SKIMS page handle, and the fixed-URL note suggests no URL parameter is needed. But it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over skims_pages or skims_store, nor does it mention alternatives. The usage context is clear enough for a single-page fetch, but exclusions or alternative routing are missing.

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