export_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds useful behavior beyond that: it writes to output_path or a temp file, returns path and content type, and explains the zip vs. single-file behavior for include_children. No 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?

Three sentences with no fluff; the core purpose is front-loaded and every sentence adds information an agent needs (destination, format behavior, return value).

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 five-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the key missing context: where the file goes, what is returned, and how include_children changes the result. It remains slightly incomplete on include_attachments and default boolean behavior.

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 coverage is only 40%, so the description needs to compensate. It adds meaningful meaning for include_children (zip behavior) and output_path (temp fallback), but does not clarify include_attachments or how format interacts with include_children.

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?

States a specific action ('Export a page') and destination ('to a local file'), and clarifies output shape (.md/.html vs zip). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as export_space.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to choose export_page over alternatives like export_space or get_page. The conditional information about include_children is behavioral rather than tool-selection guidance.

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