Get Page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a read-only operation. The description adds value by explaining the ignore logic between page_id and title+space_key, and warns about token usage with convert_to_markdown. No contradictions found.

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 well-structured: a clear opening sentence stating the purpose, followed by a clean list of arguments with explanations, and a returns clause. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 5 parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers identification logic, parameter dependencies, and return type. It could explicitly mention that metadata fields are determined by include_metadata, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds further context for each parameter, such as instructions for finding page_id in a URL, the need for exact title match, and the trade-off between markdown and HTML for token usage. This goes well beyond the schema alone.

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 'Get content of a specific Confluence page' and explains two distinct identification methods (by ID or by title+space key). This verb-resource pair is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like confluence_search or confluence_get_attachments, which serve different retrieval purposes.

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 when to use the tool by detailing the two ways to identify a page, but it does not explicitly guide the agent on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., using confluence_search when the page ID is unknown, or confluence_get_attachments when only attachments are needed). No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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