get_page_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the output includes HTML with head and localized assets, and that metadata_only returns metadata without HTML/CSS/JS. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or what auth is needed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and flag explanation. The curly braces {from,to} are confusing but overall concise. A minor improvement would clarify the brace notation.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the main use case and flag. However, it lacks details on return format, localized asset handling, and comparisons to sibling tools. Could be more 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 baseline is 3. The description adds context for metadata_only (без html/css/js) and mentions localized assets, but uses unexplained curly braces {from,to} which are not parameters. Adds some value but not significant.

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 exports a full Tilda page for self-hosting, including HTML with head and localized assets. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_page_body or get_page_export_body by specifying 'full page' and mentioning the metadata_only flag.

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 implies usage for self-hosting but does not explicitly outline when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_page_export_body. No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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