Get Page Children

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

The description adds 'recursive' and 'paginated' as behavioral traits beyond the readOnly and non-destructive annotations, which is useful. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination mechanics, or potential pitfalls like very large result sets, so transparency is moderate.

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 compact and well-structured, leading with a clear purpose statement followed by an Args list that adds necessary information without redundancy. Every element earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's modest complexity, good annotations, and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior and parameter meanings. However, it omits return type details and does not disambiguate from closely related sibling tools, making it not fully 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args list provides basic semantics for all four parameters (parent ID, cursor, limit, sort). This is helpful, but it lacks detail such as valid sort fields, limit bounds, or how the cursor is obtained, leaving gaps.

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 gets all child pages of a parent page and specifies it is recursive and paginated. It distinguishes from direct children via 'recursive' but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_page_descendants, causing minor ambiguity.

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 implies usage when recursive, paginated child page retrieval is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like get_page_direct_children or get_page_descendants. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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