get_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the key behavioral detail that include_ids adds generated id attributes to elements, which is beyond the schema description. It also clarifies that the tool returns HTML content, though it doesn't mention error handling or non-mutating nature explicitly.

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 main purpose. The second sentence delivers an actionable tip without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 get tool with just two parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient: it states the return type (HTML content) and the optional behavior. It doesn't explain handling of invalid IDs or large content, but those are not critical for basic usage. It's complete enough to successfully invoke the tool.

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 both parameters, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds value by elaborating on the include_ids parameter's purpose ('to get element IDs needed for targeted update_page commands'), which goes beyond the schema's simple 'adds generated id attributes'. This helps the agent understand when to use the parameter.

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 action ('Get the HTML content of a OneNote page') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_page and list_sections by focusing on fetching content for a single page, not listing or modifying.

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 provides practical guidance by explaining when to set include_ids=true: 'needed for targeted update_page commands'. This implies a use case for this tool in preparation for updates, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or alternative retrieval tools.

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