get_page_by_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool resolves names to scaffold IDs, returns the full page YAML, and uses case-insensitive matching. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond a simple 'fetch'. It does not cover failure modes (e.g., page not found), but for a fetch operation with no side effects, this is acceptable and adds good context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and outcome. It includes an example of page names and key behavioral details (case-insensitivity, returns full YAML) without any redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must convey what is returned; it does so by stating 'returns the full page YAML'. It also explains the resolution process and matching behavior. It could mention error handling or the structure of the YAML, but for a simple get/read operation with simple parameters, this is sufficiently complete.

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%: both pageName and projectId are described in the schema. The description adds slight extra context (e.g., 'human-readable name', 'resolves to scaffold ID'), but this largely mirrors the schema's parameter descriptions. Since the schema already documents the parameters fully, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 fetches a FlutterFlow page by its human-readable name, resolves it to a scaffold ID, and returns the full page YAML. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_pages (which lists pages) and get_page_summary (which likely returns a summary rather than full YAML).

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you have a human-readable page name and need the full YAML. It also notes case-insensitive matching, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'Use get_page_summary for summaries'), so it stops short of a 5.

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