get_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but there's no explicit statement about side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The phrase 'Returns full content' is vague; it does not specify what fields are included (e.g., metadata, body). More detail would help the agent anticipate the response.

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, concise sentence that conveys the essential information without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse.

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 operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It states the identifier format and that full content is returned. However, it could be improved by clarifying the content format (e.g., markdown) or noting any caching behavior. Considering the low complexity, it is mostly 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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'identifier', which is described as 'Page ID like LIF-DOC-1' in both the schema and the description. The description adds no further semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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' and resource 'page', with an example identifier format 'LIF-DOC-1'. It also mentions returning full content, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_issue or get_plan which target different resources.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, but the tool's purpose is straightforward retrieval by identifier. Implicitly, it is the appropriate choice when needing a page's full content, while siblings like list_issues or create_page serve different purposes. No explicit exclusions or cross-references are provided.

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