Get Page Images

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, the description discloses the base64 encoding, the MIME-type whitelist, the filename-extension fallback for ambiguous MIME types, and the 50 MB skip behavior with an error entry in the summary. These are non-obvious behaviors that an agent would not infer from 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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct operational information; the main action is front-loaded. No redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description still delivers enough operational detail: output format, filtering rules, fallback behavior, and error handling. A caller can predict what will be returned and what edge cases occur.

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 fully covers the only parameter, content_id, with a type, description, and example. The tool description adds nothing beyond that, which is acceptable given 100% 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the exact resource ('all images attached to a Confluence page'), and specifies the output contract (base64-encoded ImageContent). It also states a clear boundary (image-only filtering, non-image attachments excluded) that distinguishes it from general attachment tools.

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 intended use case is clear: retrieve page images for inline rendering. The description implicitly points away from the general attachment tools by stressing that non-image attachments are excluded, though it stops short of naming a sibling like confluence_get_attachments as the alternative.

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