cms_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 implies a read-only CMS page lookup but does not confirm side effects, authentication needs, error behavior, or how the 'arbitrary' page resolution works.

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 compact sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core behavior and then gives usage context, which is ideal for quick agent scanning.

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 one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, parameter semantics, and usage context. However, without annotations and with limited behavioral detail, it is not fully self-sufficient for an agent deciding whether this is the right tool and how safely it can be called.

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 0% and the only parameter is a plain string titled 'Code'. The description adds meaning by explaining that the code identifies a CMS page and gives examples, but it stops short of specifying accepted formats or a full allowed value list.

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 identifies the resource (arbitrary CMS page) and the access mechanism (by code), with concrete examples like divorce_shares and main. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'fetch', but the meaning is still unambiguous in context.

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 'Полезно для подборок и лендингов' provides useful usage context for collections and landing pages. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or how it compares to the many sibling tools.

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