swebsy_select_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Select a page' with no detail about side effects, whether selection persists, what happens if the page is not found, or how selection affects subsequent tool calls. The connected-project context is useful but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter tool, though it omits behavioral context that would make it more useful.

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 simple tool with one fully documented parameter, the description is minimally adequate: it names the action, the resource, and the connected-project context. However, without annotations or output schema, it leaves unclear what 'select' means operationally and how it relates to sibling tools. The absence of usage guidance and behavioral details makes it only minimally complete.

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%, so the input schema already documents the single 'page' parameter as 'Page id or name to select.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'Select a page in the connected Studio project.' It clearly distinguishes the action from sibling tools like read_page, create_page, or list_pages. However, the meaning of 'select' is somewhat ambiguous—it doesn't specify whether this sets the active page for subsequent operations or just retrieves a selection.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_page or list_pages. It implies a connected Studio project but does not state prerequisites, sequencing, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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