docmost_get_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions what is returned (title, metadata, and full content) but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential rate limits, error conditions for invalid IDs/slugs, or how the include_content parameter affects performance. The description is functional but misses key operational context.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: one sentence states the action and parameters, another specifies the return values. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or 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?

For a read operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return values but lacks context on authentication, error handling, or performance considerations. Without annotations or output schema, more completeness would be beneficial, but it meets the bare minimum for a simple getter tool.

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 fully documents both parameters (page_id and include_content). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain ID/slug format nuances or content inclusion implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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's purpose: 'Get page information and content by ID or slug' specifies the verb (get) and resource (page information and content). It distinguishes from siblings like docmost_list_pages (which lists multiple pages) and docmost_get_page_history (which retrieves version history). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from docmost_get_space or docmost_recent_pages in terms of scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use docmost_get_page versus docmost_list_pages for single vs multiple pages, or versus docmost_get_page_history for content vs history. There's also no mention of prerequisites like authentication or access rights.

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