Get Page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by specifying that the tool returns the full text in a `content` field and that it internally combines `/pages/info` with `/pages/export`. It does not cover auth, errors, or rate limits, but the core read behavior is transparent.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence adds a useful detail about the `content` field, and the third provides a helpful implementation note. There is mild overlap between the first two sentences, but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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 two-parameter read tool with a present output schema and full schema parameter coverage, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns and how it composes its result; only minor extras like authorization requirements or rate-limit behavior are absent.

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 fully describes both parameters: `page_id` as a UUID/slugId and `format` with a default and allowed values. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter detail. It adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific action and resource ('Fetches a page') and clearly defines the scope of the result: metadata plus content. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like get_page_history, but the 'metadata and content' framing makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 intended usage context is clear: call this when you need a page's metadata and full textual content, identified by page_id. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, but the description provides enough context for an agent to select it appropriately for a direct page-content fetch.

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