get-page

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, but the description adds significant behavioral detail: error on nonexistent title, truncation at 75000 bytes with a marker, and the ability to narrow to a section. This exceeds the annotation information without contradiction.

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 detailed but efficiently organized: it leads with the core function, then explains parameters and alternatives in logical order. Every sentence adds useful information for the agent, with no meaningless fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple content types, metadata, truncation, sections, and sibling alternatives), the description covers all essential aspects: error behavior, truncation mechanics, follow-up calls, and when to use sibling tools. There is no output schema, but the description gives enough information about what the agent will receive.

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 descriptions cover all 5 parameters, but the description adds valuable semantic context: explains that metadata=true retrieves revision ID for edit-conflict detection, page size, and section outline; content='none' fetches only metadata; section=N narrows content. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'single wiki page', and explicitly differentiates from get-pages and get-revision by naming them. It also clarifies content types (wikitext, HTML, metadata) and error behavior for nonexistent titles.

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 gives explicit usage context: when to use metadata=true, content='none', section=N, and clearly states 'For more than one page at a time, use get-pages' and 'For a specific historical revision, use get-revision', providing direct alternative routing.

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