get_page_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' and 'discover' clearly imply a read-only operation, and the description discloses the exact output scope plus a prerequisite (an open document). It does not discuss errors or null-page behavior, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the output inventory is front-loaded and the call trigger appears in the second sentence. Every word adds 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?

The description compensates well for the missing output schema by listing return fields and gives a concrete use case. However, the page parameter semantics are unexplained, and there is no note about behavior when the document/page is unavailable—an important gap for an optional-parameter tool with no annotations.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only refers to 'a page' without explaining the page parameter's expected format, how to identify a page, or what null means. The optional default is not documented in prose, so the agent is left to infer the calling convention.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('everything on a page'), then enumerates the exact returned fields: shape ids, master names, positions, sizes, text, connector endpoints, and container membership. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like find_masters or container_members.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to call this tool: to '(re)discover shape ids, e.g. after open_document.' This provides a clear trigger and prerequisite. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.

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