Get Page

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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: markdown bodies may be truncated with a `truncated` signal, JSON bodies are never truncated, and oversized pages are refused in JSON mode. These are exactly the non-obvious failure modes an agent needs.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the format branch and its truncation caveat. No filler; every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, yet the description still flags the meaningful field (`truncated`) and the JSON refusal case. For a 2-parameter read tool, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns more by explaining the consequence of `format`: ProseMirror JSON with full formatting and no truncation, intended for replace_page_json. It adds the why, not just the what, though the `page` identifier forms are largely restated from the schema.

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 and resource plus scope: 'Read one page: its title, location and body as Markdown.' An agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like get_section, get_page_outline or get_page_version, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Gives a clear conditional routing rule: use format='json' when the body will be fed to replace_page_json, otherwise markdown. It does not say when to prefer this over get_section/get_page_outline for partial reads, so no explicit alternatives/exclusions for the tool itself.

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