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. It does disclose the read scope and the auth requirement for protected pages, but calling it a 'password header' conflicts in phrasing with the schema's `password` request property, which can mislead an agent about how to supply credentials, and nothing is said about error behavior or return shape.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no filler. 'Format-specific code/text' is slightly loose but does not waste space.

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 3-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers what is retrieved, what is not, and the protected-read path. Remaining gaps (failure behavior on a wrong/missing password) are minor.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no information beyond the schema for `id` and `namespace`, and its 'password header' wording introduces ambiguity against the schema's `password` parameter rather than clarifying it.

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 names a specific verb (fetch) and resource (stored rendered HTML or format-specific code/text) keyed by namespace and ID, and explicitly excludes the owner-only original-source endpoint and browser viewer. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_json or get_kv, which also return format-specific content.

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 gives explicit negative routing: this reads API content, not the original-source endpoint or the browser viewer, and states that protected reads require the password. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g., get_json) as the recommended path for other content types.

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