Get Page Grids

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the tool is safe and non-mutating, and the description does not contradict this. The description adds minor context by specifying 'dynamic tables' and 'attached to a page', but it does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, or any operational characteristics beyond what the annotations state. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 immediately states the core action and resource. There is no redundant information or filler, achieving maximum economy while remaining clear.

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 that an output schema exists and the tool has 7 optional parameters with full documentation, the description does not need to explain return values or parameter details. The one-liner is sufficient for an agent to select the tool correctly. However, it could hint that the result is a list or that pagination is involved, but the schema compensates for this, so the description is almost complete for selection purposes.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (slug, cursor, page_id, order_by, fetch_all, page_size, order_direction) carrying its own description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The schema already explains the optionality and pagination behavior.

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 'Get dynamic tables attached to a Yandex Wiki page' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('dynamic tables attached to a Yandex Wiki page'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like grid_get (single grid) and page_get (page content). The phrase 'attached to a page' implies a collection operation, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving grids associated with a page, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives (e.g., grid_get) or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites like needing a page_id or slug, although the schema covers that. No exclusions or comparative context is given.

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