Get Comments

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the basic retrieval action—no mention of pagination, comment scope (top-level vs replies vs inline), or ordering. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still contributes nothing beyond what annotations and the name already suggest.

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?

One short sentence with no extraneous wording; the verb and target are front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter, though the brevity contributes to the missing sibling differentiation.

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?

With one parameter, a detailed schema, and an output schema, the structural context is strong. However, the presence of confluence_get_inline_comments among siblings makes the missing distinction between regular and inline comments a real gap for tool selection, and no usage exclusions are stated. Therefore the description is not fully complete.

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%, and the page_id property already includes a rich description with an example URL-to-ID parse. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, aligning with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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?

States a clear verb+resource combination: 'Get comments' for 'a specific Confluence page.' However, it does not differentiate from the sibling confluence_get_inline_comments, leaving ambiguity about whether inline comments are included.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention that confluence_get_inline_comments is for a different comment type, nor any conditions for choosing this tool. The only hint is the generic page scoping.

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