get_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It reveals that html is returned byte-for-byte, that text strips markup/CSS/scripts/SVG, that deleted or expired pages may still be readable until the restore window closes, and that abuse-taken-down pages are not readable.

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?

Although the description is longer than average, every sentence carries operational value: default behavior, format differences, access scope, edge cases, and a critical warning. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the rest is dense but not padded.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: input formats, ownership restrictions, lifecycle edge cases, and a dangerous misuse to avoid. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this 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 describes id_or_slug but leaves format's meaning undocumented. The description compensates thoroughly: it defines both enum values, states the default, and explains the concrete behavioral difference between html and text, adding meaning far beyond the bare enum.

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 opens with a clear verb and object: 'Read a page's content back.' It also distinguishes the two output formats and relates them to editing via update_site, making the tool's purpose and differentiation from sibling tools clear.

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 explicitly states when to use each format: html is for the exact editable content to pass to update_site, while text is for reading, summarising, or quoting without token waste. It also gives a strong when-not instruction: never edit and publish the text form.

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