get_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the reply is truncated at the configured token budget and warns about flooding context, which is critical for an agent to avoid misuse. It does not detail error handling or edge cases, but the disclosed behaviors are significant and well-covered.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value—purpose, usage guidance, and a warning. There is no redundancy or 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?

Given an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential usage, the token-budget warning, and the context strategy. The main gap is the lack of explicit parameter constraints like page indexing, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to make correct calls.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies 'document' identifies the document and 'pages' are the specific page numbers, but it does not explicitly state indexing (e.g., 1-based) or the expected format. The guidance to 'ask for the few pages a search pointed at' gives practical context but lacks precise parameter semantics.

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 Markdown of specific pages of one document, preserving LaTeX. It specifies the exact resource (pages of a document) and the action (return Markdown), making it easily distinguishable from siblings like get_chunk or get_section.

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 practical guidance on when to use it: after a search, request the few relevant pages plus a neighboring page if context is missing. It also warns against requesting wide ranges due to token truncation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for cases like retrieving a full section or a chunk, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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