get_page

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description states that the tool fetches full content, which conveys read-only intent. However, it does not explain partial-match behavior, ambiguity handling, or what happens when no content exists.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the examples earn their place by clarifying what counts as a page. No redundant content.

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 one-parameter fetch tool, the description is largely sufficient: it names the resource, the action, and the sort of value pages can have. Lacking an output schema or annotations, a brief note on return format would make it fully complete, but the constraint set is minimal.

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%, so the schema already defines page_name as an exact or partial page title. The description adds concrete examples but no additional semantic meaning beyond 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?

Description states a specific verb/resource ('Fetch the full content... page') and distinguishes the target (pages) from sibling tools (vault, projects, project status). Examples clarify the intended use case.

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?

Usage is implied by 'specific named page' and examples, but no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this over search_vault or get_project_status. The distinction is inferable but not stated.

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