read_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering safety traits. The description adds the detail that the response includes page ID and line IDs, which is useful but not critical. No contradiction exists, and the description does not go beyond the annotations in behavioral disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and the relevant return content without any filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well structured.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essentials. The only gap is the lack of explicit comparison to browse_page, but the description's specificity about structured JSON and edit IDs mitigates this. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it does not explicitly explain the page_url parameter. However, the parameter name and the tool description make it obvious that page_url is the URL of the page to read. This implicit understanding keeps the semantics at an acceptable level, though explicit clarification would be better.

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 ('Read') and resource ('structured page JSON'), and includes the key output elements ('page ID and line IDs used for edits'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browse_page, which likely provides a rendered or navigable view rather than structured JSON.

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 phrase 'used for edits' implies the tool is intended for getting identifiers needed before making edits, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over browse_page or other siblings. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided, so the guidance is only implied.

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