verify_confluence_url

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: the return fields, interpretation of HTTP status codes (200, 401/403, connection error), and the limitation of only checking the URL. This is thorough and transparent.

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 concise with two short paragraphs: one for purpose and return format, another for interpretation and note. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is clear.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It provides return format, status code meanings, and usage limitations, covering all necessary aspects for an agent.

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 single parameter 'url' is described as a Confluence URL in the description. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description adds meaning beyond the minimal schema, though it does not elaborate on expected format, which is acceptable for a simple string.

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 probes a Confluence URL to confirm reachability and anonymous access, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like check_leak_scan or find_secrets, which are for content scanning.

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 outlines that the tool only checks URL reachability, not content, and notes the analyst's responsibility for actual content. This provides clear context on when to use, though no explicit alternatives are named.

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