Get a space revision page by its ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, idempotent behavior. The description adds the HTTP method and path, which is consistent and provides useful context. No contradiction.

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?

One sentence plus the path, front-loaded with the verb. Every element earns its place; no wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists, so the agent does not know the return structure. While the tool is simple and annotations indicate safety, the description could hint at what the response contains (e.g., page metadata, content). Adequate but not 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?

Input schema descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage) and include example values for the 'body' parameter (e.g., { limit, page }). The description adds the path structure, enhancing understanding.

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 space revision page by its ID' and includes the HTTP path, identifying the verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like gitbook_get_page by specifying 'revision', but does not explicitly distinguish from gitbook_get_page_document_in_revision_by_id, which is similar.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitbook_get_page_in_change_request_by_id or gitbook_get_page_document_in_revision_by_id. The description lacks context for choosing between similar tools.

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