Get CMS Page

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral detail: the staging filter (updated_in) applied when present, which is valuable beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 with zero waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by return fields and a behavioral nuance (staging filter). Every clause earns its place.

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 the output schema exists, the description doesn't need to enumerate all return values, yet it highlights key fields and the staging behavior. The tool is simple (one required param) and the description covers all necessary operational aspects. Nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters (profile, identifier, magentoRoot) are fully documented there. The description only reiterates the identifier example, adding no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 ('looks up'), identifies the resource ('CMS page'), and specifies the key ('identifier'), with a clarifying example. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_cms_block and audit_cms_page_blocks by focusing on page lookup with parsed block references.

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 (lookup by identifier, staging filter) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool. However, the purpose is so specific that an agent can infer when to choose it over related tools like get_cms_block or audit_cms_page_blocks.

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