ghost_get_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get full details and content' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose potential side effects (none expected), permissions, response format, or error behavior. 'Full details' is vague and could lead to assumptions about return structure. Adequate but lacks depth.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, then specifies the lookup method. No filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the key differentiator ('static page') is included.

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 read tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and identification method. However, it does not mention the format parameter or hint at the response structure, which could lead to uncertainty about what 'full details' includes. Given the schema richness, this is minor but not fully 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 coverage is 100% – both parameters have descriptions explaining their meaning and the enum for format. The description only mentions 'by ID or Slug' which mirrors the schema and adds no new information about the format parameter or its usage. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'static Ghost page', and the lookup method 'by ID or Slug'. It distinguishes from siblings like ghost_get_post (posts) and ghost_list_pages (list) by specifying 'full details and content' of a single page. This is precise and actionable.

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: when you have a page ID or slug and need full details. It clearly clarifies the target (static page vs. post) which differentiates from ghost_get_post, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like ghost_list_pages for browsing or when not to use this tool. Slight gap but context is clear.

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