sb_page_state

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: the hydrate gate silently discards documents with a missing root, the Go renderer lacks this gate, and this explains the live-has-data-but-canvas-empty state. It also clarifies the tool reports draft-vs-live differences and recovery points, going well beyond the annotation.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the second sentence is dense and rambling, with a long parenthetical about hydrate gates and renderer differences stuffed into a clause about blank rendering. The information is valuable, but the structure makes it harder to parse than necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool reports; it covers copy identity, blank-canvas behavior, draft/live changes, and recovery points. It is complete enough for an agent to know when and why to call it, though 'recovery points' and 'what this session holds' remain somewhat underspecified.

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 only 50%, with site_id undocumented, and the description does not mention parameters at all. It indirectly refers to 'this page,' aligning with page_id's default, but it adds no meaning for site_id or how the page context is resolved.

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 (this page's three copies) and the specific diagnostic outputs: which copy is draft/published/session, whether the canvas will render blank, whether the draft differs from live, and where recovery points are. This is distinct from sibling tools like page_open, node_read, or outline, so an agent can tell what this tool is for.

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?

Usage is implied through the scenario described: diagnose which copy is which, understand why the editor canvas is blank while live data exists, or locate recovery points. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over sibling diagnostic tools, nor any exclusions or alternatives.

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