dw_page_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states that the tool retrieves a page and all its fields, but omits key details such as read-only nature, error handling (e.g., missing page), or authentication requirements.

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 a single, focused sentence with no extraneous information. It front-loads the core action and resource, earning its place.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It could clarify that this only retrieves pages (not other entities like paragraphs), but sibling tool names provide that context. The phrase 'all item fields' hints at the response richness.

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 100% for the single parameter 'pageId', which has a clear description in the schema ('Page ID (numeric string)'). The description adds 'including all item fields', which relates to output rather than parameter semantics, so it provides minimal extra value beyond the schema.

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 'Get a single DynamicWeb page by ID, including all item fields.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('DynamicWeb page'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like dw_page_list (which lists pages) and dw_page_create (which creates pages).

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. While siblings exist for listing, creating, or updating pages, the description offers no contextual hints about selection criteria or prerequisites.

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