ipa_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: output is Markdown, reads are truncated on long pages to an outline plus the first part, and section fetches return the remainder. It omits what happens on an unknown page id or a non-matching section title, and never mentions max_chars truncation, so the failure and truncation contract is only half 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?

Front-loads verb, resource, and format, then moves to parameter examples and the long-page behavior in a compact block. Three sentences with little waste; only the trailing 'cite the page's URL' instruction slightly stretches the boundary into usage policy, but it is short and actionable.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the read semantics and truncation model reasonably well. The unexplained max_chars parameter and the absent error behavior (invalid id, unknown section) leave gaps an agent would likely hit on first 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 0%, so the description must compensate: it explains 'name' as a page id with four examples and 'section' as a section title with three examples, which genuinely adds meaning. The third parameter, max_chars, is never mentioned, leaving a documented gap against the 0% baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a page of the site (Markdown)') and grounds it with concrete id examples ('dudin_scope_sdc-nikon', 'lab-vms'). It does not, however, differentiate itself from plausible siblings like ipa_item or ipa_open, so an agent still has to infer which read tool to pick.

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?

Gives real usage guidance for the optional section parameter — 'A long page without a section gives its outline and the first part; ask for sections to read the rest' — which tells the agent how to iterate. But it never says when to prefer this over sibling tools (ipa_item, ipa_open, ipa_search) or when not to use it, so the routing decision is left implicit.

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