docs_get_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns Markdown content and accepts flexible page identifiers, which is useful. However, it does not mention failure behavior for missing pages, authentication requirements, or output size limits, leaving some behavioral uncertainty for a read operation.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and output format are front-loaded, and the parameter guidance is compact and directly actionable.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential information: what the tool returns and what forms the input can take. It could additionally mention error behavior or how to discover page identifiers, but the current description is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema only defines `page` as a string with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that `page` can be a full URL, a path like 'energy/checkin', or a title fragment from docs_list_pages. It stops short of detailing exact matching rules or ambiguous-title handling.

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 names the action ('Fetch') and the resource ('a knowledge-base page'), and specifies the output format ('as Markdown'). It also distinguishes this tool from sibling listing/search tools like docs_list_pages and docs_search by focusing on retrieving a single page's content.

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 clear invocation context by explaining that `page` can be a full URL, a path, or a title fragment from docs_list_pages. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with docs_search or state when not to use it, but the 'Fetch a page' framing makes the appropriate use case reasonably clear.

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