logseq_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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'retrieve' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors (e.g., if the page doesn't exist). The description mentions 'detailed information' but lacks specifics on response format or potential side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action ('retrieve') and resource ('detailed information about a specific page'), making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 complexity of retrieving page data with metadata and content, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., structure of metadata, content format), potential limitations, or error handling. For a tool with no structured behavioral hints, this leaves too much ambiguity for effective agent use.

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%, meaning the input schema already documents both parameters ('src_page' and 'include_children') with descriptions and examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying parameter interactions or usage examples. However, since the schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific page including metadata and content', which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'logseq_get_page_content' or 'logseq_get_all_pages', which reduces the score from a perfect 5.

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. For example, it doesn't explain when to choose 'logseq_get_page' over 'logseq_get_page_content' (which might retrieve just content without metadata) or 'logseq_get_all_pages' (for listing pages). There's no mention of prerequisites or context for usage.

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