get_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states what is returned (fields, actions, sections, navigation context) which is genuinely useful. However, it doesn't disclose any details about read-only nature, error behavior for invalid page_ids, or whether partial specs can be returned. The content disclosure adds value but misses safety/edge-case behavior.

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 compact sentence that states the purpose and the return contents. Zero wasted words, perfectly front-loaded with the primary action and target.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with a well-covered schema and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It names what the response contains (fields, actions, sections, navigation context), compensating for the lack of an output schema. Slight deduction for not covering error conditions or pagination behavior, though the simplicity of the tool mitigates this.

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 100%, meaning the schema fully documents the page_id parameter with concrete example values. The description adds 'full page specification' context that clarifies the parameter selects the complete spec, not a fragment. Given perfect schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies and the description's clarification of scope earns a 4.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get full page specification by page_id') and lists the concrete content returned (fields, actions, sections, navigation context). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_field, get_table_schema, and get_workflow by indicating this returns the aggregate page-level spec.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving complete page specifications, not individual fragments (which is what get_field, get_transitions etc. handle). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over siblings or when it should NOT be used. The context is clear but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are named.

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