mt_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 disclosure. It states it 'gets' details (implying a read operation), but doesn't disclose whether it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate, though not contradictory.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. This is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and 2 required parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, error conditions, or behavioral aspects like idempotency. For a retrieval tool in a content management context, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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% description coverage (siteId and pageId are documented in Japanese), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how to obtain siteId/pageId or their formats). It relies entirely on the schema for parameter semantics.

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 'ウェブページの詳細を取得します' (Get web page details) clearly states the verb ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and resource ('ウェブページの詳細' - web page details). It distinguishes from siblings like mt_list_pages (which lists pages) and mt_get_content_data (which gets content data). However, it doesn't specify what 'details' include, making it slightly less specific than a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use mt_get_page versus mt_list_pages (for listing) or mt_get_entry (for entries), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing siteId and pageId. This leaves the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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