get_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose concrete behavior: output format (480x800 1-bit PNG), the display constraint it targets (e-ink/small screens), and the wide=true landscape variant. It omits edge-case behavior such as what happens for an out-of-range page (schema caps at 32) or fetch failures, but for a read-only image fetch this is solid disclosure.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with no waste; the deliverable (rendered PNG page) is front-loaded, then page semantics, then the wide variant. Nothing is padded or restated.

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, and the description compensates by specifying the return artifact (size, bit depth, format) plus the page-ordering model. The main gap is the undocumented 'key' parameter and no mention of the page upper bound that lives only in the schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains two of the three parameters well — page (0 is the front page, story pages follow) and wide (800x480 landscape front page) — adding real meaning beyond the bare types. The required 'key' parameter is never explained at all, so coverage is partial.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it returns one rendered page of a briefing as a 480x800 1-bit PNG, and it clarifies the page-index semantics. It implicitly contrasts with render_briefing (a single page vs. a whole briefing) but never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'Made for e-ink and small displays' gives the intended context for using this over alternative rendering tools, which is useful implied usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over render_briefing or when not to use it, nor any prerequisites, so explicit routing guidance is absent.

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