Get Doc Page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotation: the stateful set_context prerequisite and what the response contains (full content, metadata, timestamps). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return fields, and prerequisite. Front-loaded with the action and zero filler or redundancy.

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 fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned and the critical set_context prerequisite. It does not describe error behavior when context is missing or the relationship/validation between the three IDs, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is fundamentally absent.

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% - each parameter already has a clear description ('The public Id (Guid) of the ...'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It could have noted the hierarchy among documentationId, versionId, and pageId, but the schema adequately identifies each parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('documentation page') and further clarifies by listing return fields (title, slug, Markdown content, page type, timestamps). This implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like get_doc_tree or get_doc_page_revision, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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 gives a clear, actionable prerequisite: 'Requires project context (call set_context first).' This tells the agent the ordering dependency, which is valuable. However, it does not state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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