Get Page Restrictions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine semantic value beyond that by defining what an empty restriction list means (unrestricted), which is an interpretation rule an agent could not derive from the annotations or schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then return semantics, then the empty-list edge case. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope (page-level vs space-level) and result interpretation. The only residual gap is the absence of routing guidance toward confluence_check_content_permissions for effective-permission questions.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single page_id parameter, so the description is not obliged to document it. Nothing in the description adds format or sourcing guidance for page_id beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('view and edit restrictions') scoped explicitly to a Confluence page, which implicitly separates it from space-level tools like confluence_get_space_permissions. It never names the adjacent siblings (confluence_set_page_restrictions, confluence_check_content_permissions), so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to inspect page-level restrictions before updating them. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'do not use this for space-level permissions, use X instead', which matters given three closely related permission siblings.

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