Get page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides detailed semantics for line slicing (0-based, inclusive, negative indexing, default whole page) which goes beyond the schema. It does not mention behaviors like id/path conflict resolution or error handling, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds necessary detail (identification, line-range mechanics, default semantics) with no wasted words.

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 retrieval tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential semantics: how to identify a page, how to slice lines, and defaults. It leaves minor gaps such as behavior when both id and path are supplied or when neither is given, but overall it is sufficient for effective use.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the combined default (0..-1 returns whole page) and reinforcing the Python-style negative indexing, which is not fully assembled in the schema. This elevates the score to 4.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('one page'), and clearly states the two identification methods (numeric id OR path). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page_tree and get_page_history, which target different operations.

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 clearly establishes when to use this tool: when fetching a single page by id or path. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use list_pages instead), which would earn a 5.

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