Get Status Page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool hits the public `/api/status-page/{slug}` endpoint, requires the page to be published, and returns a specific configuration structure. This is helpful behavioral context, though it does not mention error behavior for unpublished or nonexistent slugs.

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 primary purpose, and every clause adds useful information: what is returned, the ordering/grouping, the inclusion of incidents, and the published-only endpoint constraint.

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 single-parameter read operation with an output schema available, the description gives enough context: what is fetched, from where, under what condition, and what the response contains. No further detail about return values is needed because the output schema handles that.

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 schema already fully describes the single `slug` parameter as the status page slug (URL-safe identifier), with 100% coverage. The description adds the retrieval-by-slug context, which matches the schema, but it does not add much beyond it. 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 states the tool returns the full configuration of a status page by slug, listing the contained groups, monitors, and incidents. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listStatusPages, which would only list pages, and create/update/delete tools, which mutate.

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 gives clear scoping: it only works for published status pages and fetches the public endpoint. It implies use when you need the full configuration for a specific status page, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like listStatusPages for page discovery or unpublished pages.

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