whodb_platform_app_page_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral note — workspace targeting is per-call and does not change session defaults — but says nothing about the volume, format, or content of the returned files.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the workspace behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally describe what 'generated files' actually returns (paths? contents? a manifest?), but it leaves that to inference. It is adequate for a read tool whose annotations cover safety, but not fully complete for the agent.

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 schema documents all five parameters including the nested workspace object. The description adds a semantic nuance ('without changing defaults') about how the workspace param behaves, but this is a baseline addition on top of already-complete schema docs.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Read the generated files for one page of a hosted app.' The 'for one page' scoping differentiates it from the broader whodb_platform_app_files sibling, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly. An agent can distinguish the granularity without opening either schema.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or conditions for choosing this over whodb_platform_app_files, whodb_platform_app_views, or the various app view tools. The only routing hint ('Page name from whodb_platform_app_views') lives in the parameter schema, not the description.

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