conf_get_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the return payload shape (storage-format XHTML body, version, ancestors). It says nothing about permissions, access errors, or pagination/size limits for large pages.

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?

A single compact phrase with no wasted words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is telegraphic to the point of being slightly clipped, but nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter read with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this is nearly adequate: it does describe the salient return contents. The gap is the pageId input format and any hint about page-body size or truncation, which an agent cannot recover from the structured fields.

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 single pageId parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not say whether pageId is a numeric ID, a UUID, or a title, which is the one piece of information an agent actually needs to invoke this correctly.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('page'), and adds that the result includes the storage XHTML body, version, and ancestors, which distinguishes it from sibling reads like conf_get_children or conf_search. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to use this for fetching a single page by ID rather than conf_search, conf_get_children, or conf_get_space. The only hint is the word 'Read' and the singular 'page', which leaves selection against a 14-sibling list to inference.

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