get_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the non-obvious behavior that articles over 4000 characters are not returned in full, but rather as a chunk list plus first chunk, with chunk=N to fetch further chunks. This is substantial transparency, though it omits error/not-found behavior.

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 front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core operation, the second defines id cardinality, and the third explains important long-article behavior. Dense but every sentence 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 lack of an output schema, the description explains the key return behavior: normal pages return full text, while long articles return a chunk list and first chunk. It also covers multi-page limits. A full response envelope or error behavior is missing, but for correct invocation the description is sufficient.

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 schema documents types, but the description adds meaningful semantics: id can be a filename without .md or a numeric id, arrays must contain 2-10 items, and max_chars bounds the aggregate response. This goes beyond the bare property descriptions.

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 operation: fetching the full text of a help page by identifier, with concrete identifier forms (filename without .md or numeric id). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search or related by framing the lookup as identifier-based, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It provides clear invocation context: use a string for one page, an array for 2-10 pages bounded by max_chars, and chunk=N for long articles. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name sibling alternatives, but the conditions for using this tool are evident.

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