get_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates the operation is a read (get) with no side effects implied, which is good. However, it does not disclose potential behavioral traits such as idempotency, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what constitutes 'content + metadata' (e.g., whether it includes all fields or a summary). The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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?

The description is a single sentence of 18 words that is concise, front-loaded with the primary action ('Get a page's content + metadata'), and efficiently conveys the key usage methods. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It explains how to retrieve a page but omits details about the return structure, error handling (e.g., what if page not found?), and whether content is full or partial. For a getter tool, more detail on output would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema. It explains that 'path' and 'locale' work together (with locale defaulting to 'en') and that 'id' is an alternative lookup method. This clarifies the relationship between parameters and usage. However, it does not specify behavior when both id and path are provided, or the priority between them, which would earn a 5.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a page's content and metadata, with two distinct lookup methods (by path+locale or by id). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_page, delete_page, update_page (write operations) and list_pages (listing). This is a specific verb+resource combination with clear scope.

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 implicitly guides usage by specifying retrieval methods (path+locale or id), indicating when to use this tool (to fetch a single page's content). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context from sibling tools (e.g., list_pages for multiple pages) provides sufficient differentiation. The lack of explicit exclusions or when-to-use guidance prevents a 5.

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