get_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return-format behavior (markdown default, json yielding raw ProseMirror), which is some value beyond structured data. It does not add context about auth requirements, trashed pages, or output shape, so it stays at a 3.

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?

Exactly two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core function and the second gives the highest-value usage hint. Both earn their place and the key scoping information is front-loaded.

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 simple read tool with 2 parameters, strong safety annotations, and no nested objects, the description covers what is returned (metadata, Markdown body, raw ProseMirror). The minor gap is that 'metadata' is undefined — the agent doesn't know which fields are included — and the html format option is left to inference. Still, nothing needed for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one meaningful nugget beyond the schema: 'Use format=json for raw ProseMirror' clarifies what the json enum value actually returns, which helps an agent pick the right format for downstream editing tasks. The page_id semantics (UUID or slugId) remain fully covered by the schema.

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 and resource: 'Get a page's metadata and Markdown body.' This is clear and substantive, and the return-value specificity ('metadata', 'Markdown body', 'raw ProseMirror') helps distinguish it from siblings like get_page_history, get_breadcrumbs, and get_backlinks. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 format tip 'Use format=json for raw ProseMirror' provides some usage guidance for choosing an output format, which is genuinely useful. But the dimension asks about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and the description offers no exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when to prefer export_page or get_page_history). Usage is only implied by the read-oriented verb and resource.

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