Get Space Page Tree

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

The annotations already mark it read-only, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it returns a flat list with parent_id and depth attributes, emphasizes token-efficient processing, and contrasts with rendering full ASCII trees. This helps the agent know what to expect and why it is preferable.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior, then lists return attributes, performance advantage, and a concrete use case. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, output shape, token-efficiency rationale, and when to call it. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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?

Both input parameters are already documented in the schema (space_key and limit), so schema description coverage is 100% and the baseline applies. The description mentions depth/title filtering, but those refer to returned attributes rather than input parameters, so it adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 specific verb and resource: get the page hierarchy for a Confluence space as a flat list. The space-wide scope is evident, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related sibling confluence_get_page_children, leaving that distinction to inference.

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?

Gives a clear intended use case: understand space organization before creating or moving pages. It does not state when not to use it or name an alternative tool, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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