Получить страницу по ID

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields (body in storage format, version, space, labels), which gives a reasonable understanding of the tool's behavior. However, it does not mention authentication, error handling, or rate limits, leaving some gaps.

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 sentence that is concise and to the point. It lists the key returned fields without extraneous information. It earns its place with no waste.

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?

The description lists the main returned fields (body, version, space, labels) but does not mention other possible fields like status or author. With no output schema, this is adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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% as the single parameter 'id' has a description. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema; it lists the returned fields but does not elaborate on the parameter format or constraints. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool returns a page with specific fields (body, version, space, labels). The verb 'возвращает' (returns) and resource 'страницу' (page) are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like confluence_get_page_by_title and confluence_search.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when you have a page ID but does not mention when not to use or which sibling tools are preferable for other use cases.

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