get_page

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by explaining the compact behavior, the re-hydration process, and authentication requirements (WEBCAKE_API_BASE, WEBCAKE_JWT). No contradictions.

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 fact-rich and front-loaded with the main purpose. It could be slightly more concise, but every sentence provides necessary context.

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 complexity (compact mode, output structure, auth), the description covers the output fields, behavior, and prerequisites. Though no output schema exists, the textual description is sufficient.

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%, and the description adds significant meaning to the compact parameter by describing what 'compacted' entails and the re-hydration workflow. The page_id parameter is adequately covered.

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 it fetches a page's decoded source tree, listing the structure (page, popup, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling get tools like get_page_schema by focusing on the full source tree.

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 workflow context, explaining how to edit the compacted output and send it back to update_page/patch_page. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid alternative tools like get_page_schema.

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