get_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: redirect following, truncation by max_length, template expansion, and link resolution. However, it does not mention error handling or the return structure.

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 dense sentence that packs all information. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, but could be broken into multiple sentences for clarity. Still, it is concise with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all essential behaviors: redirects, truncation, template expansion, and link resolution. It provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly, though error cases are not mentioned.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'title' is the page title, and 'max_length' controls truncation. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it could be more precise about title matching.

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 it retrieves the pure text full text of a Moegirl Wiki page, with specific details on template expansion, link resolution, redirect following, and truncation. It differentiates from the sibling search_moegirl tool which searches for pages.

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 implicitly indicates usage: when you need the full text content of a known page. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the sibling search_moegirl provides contrast. Missing explicit exclusions or alternatives, but context is clear.

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