planist_read_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read and lists possible representations, which adds some context. However, it is ambiguous whether all representations are returned or if one is chosen based on some unstated condition, and there is no mention of permission requirements, error behavior, or output format nuances.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, followed by clarifying details. There is no redundancy or unnecessary words, making it an efficient and model-friendly description.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description is fairly adequate, but the 'or' between AST, Markdown, and structural block representation leaves ambiguity about the actual output. Since there is no output schema, this missing detail is noteworthy and prevents a higher score.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description repeats 'Stable ID' from the schema description without adding extra semantic meaning or usage details, so it stays at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a clear resource ('Planist page') and specifies the output types (AST, Markdown, structural block representation) and the identifier (Stable ID). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like planist_list_pages, which lists pages, and the variable-related tools.

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 implies the tool is used to fetch a page's representation when you have its Stable ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no guidance on selecting between the representation types or when a different tool might be more appropriate.

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