get_page

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuine behavioral trait: the page is decompressed first if the file stores it compressed. It also specifies the return format (raw mxGraphModel XML). It omits error behavior (missing page index, unreadable file) and any permission considerations, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler. The what-and-returns statement is front-loaded and the prerequisite follows naturally, with no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return value, and it does ('raw mxGraphModel XML'), along with the decompression nuance and the list_pages prerequisite. For a two-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only failure modes are unaddressed.

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 both parameters (page, path) are already fully documented in the schema, including the index/name/id options and the .drawio/.xml extension rule. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the correct baseline-3 outcome.

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 verb and resource (reads one page/diagram from a local .drawio file) plus the exact return shape (raw mxGraphModel XML). It implicitly narrows scope against whole-file siblings like open_drawio_xml by stressing 'one page', but never names those alternatives, so differentiation is partial.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: 'Use list_pages first to find the index, name, or id of the page you need.' That tells the agent when this tool is callable and what must precede it, though it offers no when-not guidance or comparison to the other open_drawio_* readers.

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