Get Page Resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get' is consistent with that (no contradiction). The description adds the scope of the operation ('including attachments and grids') but offers no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, permission requirements, or return format. Since the schema covers pagination details, the description adds only minimal value.

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, compact sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse 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?

The schema is rich (all params described, output schema present), but the description itself is minimal and lacks usage context. It does not clarify how this tool relates to sibling resource-specific tools, nor does it mention that it aggregates multiple resource types. An agent would need to infer its role from the name and schema, limiting contextual completeness.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptive text for all 9 parameters (e.g., 'Opaque pagination cursor', 'Optional resource types filter'). The description itself doesn't mention any parameters, so the schema carries the full semantic burden. With complete schema coverage, the baseline 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 ('Get') and resource ('resources linked to a Yandex Wiki page') and mentions the resource types (attachments and grids). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like page_get_attachments or page_get_grids, so an agent might not know which to select.

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 the alternative resource-specific tools (page_get_attachments, page_get_grids). It doesn't mention that this tool can fetch multiple resource types in one call or any exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without a basis for choosing it over siblings.

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