get-status-page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only retrieval operation, but it does not detail potential behaviors such as error handling (e.g., if pageId not found), rate limits, or any authentication requirements. The transparency is adequate but lacks richer context.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and resource. While it could potentially include a bit more context (e.g., that it returns the full status page object), it remains appropriately brief and well-structured.

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 the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not indicate what the response contains (e.g., full status page details) or any usage constraints. For a simple ID-based retrieval, it suffices, but additional context would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter pageId, so the schema already documents it well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it merely restates 'by ID'. Therefore, it meets the baseline of 3 without adding extra value.

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 'Get a specific status page by ID' clearly states the action (Get), the resource (status page), and the identifier method (by ID). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like list-status-pages, create-status-page, etc.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is suitable for retrieving a single page by ID, nor does it exclude scenarios like listing or creating. No explicit context or exclusions are given.

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