get_page

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It mentions the restriction to text files with specific extensions and that it returns full text. However, it does not address error handling or access requirements, leaving some ambiguity for edge cases.

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 two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and adding a constraint in the second sentence. There is no redundant information or unnecessary wording.

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 tool has a single parameter, an output schema exists (as signaled), and the complexity is low. The description provides the purpose, path semantics, and file-type restrictions, making it sufficiently complete for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema provides no description for the 'path' parameter (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining that the path is repo-relative and typically comes from search results. It also lists accepted file types, giving meaningful semantics to the 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 clearly states the tool returns the full text of a knowledge page using a repo-relative path, and specifies the allowed file extensions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_product or get_coverage, which target different resources.

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 phrase 'from search results' provides clear context that the tool is intended to be used after a search returns a path. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for a simple getter tool.

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