confluence_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does (search via CQL) but does not describe whether it is read-only, error behavior (e.g., invalid CQL), or what the response contains (metadata vs full content). Important safety and behavioral context is missing.

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 sentence, concise and to the point. It front-loads the core action (search Confluence via CQL). While shorter, it effectively communicates the tool's function without extraneous 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?

Given the complexity of a CQL search tool and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return value format (e.g., list of page summaries), pagination details beyond maxResults, or error handling. An agent would lack sufficient information to anticipate the tool's output.

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%, with both parameters (cql and maxResults) already described in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides, only reiterating CQL usage. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 tool searches Confluence content using CQL. It identifies the specific mechanism (CQL queries) and the target resource (Confluence content). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the mention of CQL implicitly distinguishes it from simpler lookups like get_page_by_title. A score of 4 reflects clear purpose without explicit sibling differentiation.

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 like confluence_get_space_pages or jira_search. It does not mention prerequisites, common use cases, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. This leaves the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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