get_page_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It only mentions 'with full content', which is actually conditional on the expandBody parameter (default true). The description does not disclose that full content can be omitted, nor does it cover permissions, error behavior, rate limits, or return format. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence containing no filler. Every word contributes: the verb, resource, identifier method, and content scope are all communicated crisply. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 simple get-by-ID tool, the minimal description is adequate, but it omits any differentiation from siblings (beyond 'by its ID'), does not explain what 'full content' means for the response, and lacks any error or access considerations. Given there is no output schema or annotations, the description could do more to fully contextualize the 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 baseline is 3. The description adds no further meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. 'with full content' does not clarify the expandBody parameter beyond its existing description, so no extra value is added.

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 the resource 'a Confluence page by its ID', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page_by_title (which uses title) and get_space_pages (which lists pages). The phrase 'with full content' adds useful scope information.

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 clear context: use this tool when you have a Confluence page ID. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but 'by its ID' implicitly differentiates it from get_page_by_title and search_confluence. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so it misses the top 'explicit alternatives' criterion.

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