get_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the default compaction behavior, exactly what boilerplate is stripped, how to opt out (compact:false), and that Webcake credentials are required. It stops short of describing failure behavior for missing pages or size limits, but the added context is substantial for a read tool.

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 the verb and resource, then the return shape, then the compaction default, then the auth prerequisite. Three dense sentences with no filler; the compaction clause is slightly long but each clause carries distinct information.

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 must carry the return shape — and it does, naming the tree sections plus name, organization_id, and source_version, and explaining the default sparse form. Combined with annotations covering the read-only safety profile, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only edge-case/error behavior is unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns more by explaining the semantic purpose of compact:true — the output is not just smaller but is the re-hydratable shape accepted by the save tools, which the schema text does not convey. page_id is left to the schema, which is appropriate.

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 ('Fetches an existing page's source tree') and enumerates the top-level sections returned (page, popup, settings, options, cartConfigs). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_page_schema, list_pages, and get_element without opening any schema.

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 context is only implied: the note that the compacted tree matches 'the same sparse shape the save tools accept and re-hydrate' hints this is the read half of an edit round-trip. It never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer list_pages/find_pages/get_page_schema instead, so no explicit routing guidance is given.

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