Get Jmp Page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it clearly discloses the core behavior: retrieving the full text and including figures. It does not go into error handling or format details, but for a read-only page retrieval tool the main behavior is transparent.

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 states the action and the key output detail ('with its figures') with no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient: it names what is returned and the input format is covered by the schema. It could be more complete by mentioning invalid-page behavior or clarifying how figures are represented, but these are minor gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter description already explains that 'page' accepts a path or exact title. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Return') and a clear resource ('the full text of one documentation page'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like search_jmp_docs, browse_jmp_toc, and find_jmp_figures by focusing on a single page's complete content plus its figures.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent would use this when it already knows a page path or exact title and wants the full content. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_jmp_docs, find_jmp_figures, or browse_jmp_toc, nor does it name alternatives.

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