get_page_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It describes what data is returned (custom-field schema) and mentions relation fields, but does not state whether the operation is read-only (though 'get' implies it), what happens on invalid IDs, or any error behavior. This is a moderate gap given no annotation support.

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, both information-dense. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is concise and actionable. No wasted words.

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 get-by-id tool, the description covers the return content in detail and gives usage context. It lacks an explicit statement about output format or error handling, but the absence of an output schema makes the description's detail adequate. Since there are no annotations, a slightly richer description would be ideal, but it remains largely complete.

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 schema already documents the parameter with a description ('Page type id (from list_page_types)') and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific semantics beyond the usage context, so it neither improves nor harms the understanding.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a single page type with its full custom-field schema, specifying exactly what fields are included (keys, types, options, relation fields). It also explicitly contrasts with list_page_types, making it distinct.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool before writing customFields on a page, because list_page_types does not return the fields. Also references list_page_types as the source for the pageTypeId, providing clear routing.

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