test_page_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'test' and 'show sample content', which implies this is for testing/diagnostic purposes rather than production use, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what kind of content is retrieved, or any rate limits. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more specific about what 'test' entails. The structure is straightforward with no wasted verbiage.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'test' means operationally, what format the sample content takes, whether authentication is required, or what the expected output looks like. Given the testing context and lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.

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 input schema already fully documents both parameters (endpoint and length) with descriptions and defaults. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'endpoint' means in context or provide examples beyond the default '/news'. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Test page content retrieval and show sample content', which is clear but somewhat vague. It specifies the action (retrieval and showing) and resource (page content), but doesn't distinguish it from similar tools like 'get_news' or 'get_news_detail' in the sibling list. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what makes this tool unique.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_news' and 'get_news_detail' that might retrieve similar content, there's no indication of when this testing tool is appropriate versus production data retrieval tools. The description lacks any context about use cases or exclusions.

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