view_side_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that rendered HTML appears only at full, that medium/full include currentVersionId and publishedVersionId, and that a mismatch indicates unpublished draft edits. This reveals the conditional output behavior clearly. It does not explicitly state read-only, but 'view' implies it, and no side effects are claimed.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then compactly enumerates the detail-level behaviors and the version mismatch semantics. Every sentence adds value, and there is no filler. The length is appropriate given the complexity of the 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?

For a read/view tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the precise fields returned for each detail level, the meaning of the version IDs, and the recommended use case. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional guessing.

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?

Although the schema already covers all three parameters (100% coverage), the description adds significant meaning to the 'detail' parameter by specifying exactly what each value returns (rendered HTML and overrides vs. summary and overrideSectionKeys vs. id/slug/name/type/isPublished). This goes beyond the generic verbosity description in 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?

The description opens with 'View a side page including sections and rendered HTML', a specific verb+resource that clearly states the tool's function. It further differentiates from siblings like list_side_pages and view_side_page_version by describing the detail-level variations and the intended use of reading a section's typed shape before editing with set_side_page_section.

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 explicit guidance on when to use full detail ('use this to read a section's typed shape before editing it with set_side_page_section') and explains the trade-offs of each detail level. While it does not explicitly contrast with view_side_page_version or other siblings, the context and use-case are clear.

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