Get Content Attachments

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: the API's application/octet-stream media type quirk, the reliability of filename filtering, and the returned metadata fields. This goes beyond the annotations and helps agents avoid a common filtering pitfall.

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 with a clear lead sentence, bulleted return details, an highlighted important note, and a useful-for list. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary because the media type caveat is repeated from the schema, but the formatting keeps it scannable and front-loaded.

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 output schema exists, parameters are 100% documented, and annotations indicate a read-only operation, the description provides complete context. It explains return fields, the core API behavior caveat, and common use cases, so an agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces the media type caveat and suggests filename as more reliable, adding a small amount of context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't substantially extend parameter semantics for the rest of the parameters, and the wildcard/pattern matching hint conflicts slightly with the schema's exact match statement.

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 states a specific verb ('List all attachments') and resource ('Confluence content item (page or blog post)'), and differentiates from siblings by focusing on metadata listing rather than download or upload operations. This distinguishes it clearly from tools like confluence_download_attachment and confluence_get_page_images.

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 explicit use cases ('Discovering what files are attached', 'Getting attachment IDs for download operations', etc.), giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool in favor of a sibling.

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