blogger_pages_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns content and metadata, but it does not explain the behavioral impact of the 'view' parameter (e.g., ADMIN vs READER access levels) or any potential side effects/errors. It safely implies a read operation but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence that uses a clear verb-first structure. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy or filler.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately communicates the return value ('content and metadata'). It does not list the required parameters (handled by schema) or cover edge cases like pagination or authorization, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably 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?

The input schema already provides descriptive text for all three parameters, including the enum for 'view', giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it does not exceed the schema 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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve'), the resource ('a single static page'), and the means ('by its unique page ID'). It also specifies what is returned ('content and metadata'), differentiating it from sibling tools like blogger_pages_list and blogger_pages_delete.

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 usage when a specific page ID is known, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as blogger_pages_list or blogger_pages_getByPath. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it, so guidance is only implicit.

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