page_get

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that three output encodings exist and characterizes the outline format. It is silent on permission requirements, behavior on very large pages, and what happens when id, url, and site disagree or are all omitted, which is a meaningful gap for a tool with 5 optional params.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler that covers the verb, the resource, and the format dimension. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves gaps that a second sentence about id/url/site selection could have closed.

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 read-only tool with no output schema and a fully described schema, format enumeration plus the outline explanation is a reasonable core. It falls short on the optional id/url/site triple and the section parameter, which an agent needs resolved to invoke the tool confidently.

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 parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description does add a little meaning by naming the three format values and explaining that outline yields headings and tables, but it says nothing about id vs url vs site precedence or what section does.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read a Confluence page") plus the three possible renderings, which separates it from mutating siblings like page_edit or page_update_section. It does not explicitly name any sibling, but the read-vs-write split is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over page_search, table_get, or the section-oriented page_update_section, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is the generic act of reading a page, which the agent would infer from the name alone.

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