Get Page Images

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description details image type detection, handling of ambiguous MIME types via filename extension, skipping images larger than 50 MB with error entries, and base64 encoding. This fully discloses behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 moderately long but every sentence adds value. It is well-structured with clear bullet points, though it could be slightly more concise without losing key details.

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 single required parameter, good annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, including return format (text summary + ImageContent). It addresses edge cases like large files and MIME ambiguity.

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?

The only parameter, content_id, is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal value, only mentioning 'blog post' as an alternative to 'page' and providing an example, which is helpful but not substantive.

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 retrieves all images attached to a Confluence page as inline base64 content, filtering by image types. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like confluence_get_attachments (all attachments) and confluence_download_attachment (single file).

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 implicitly says when to use (for images only) by stating non-image attachments are excluded, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-images or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context of sibling tools makes the distinction clear.

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