list_space_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return format ('Dictionary containing list of pages with title and id'), which adds some behavioral context, but fails to disclose critical traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by structured sections for args and returns. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' labels could be slightly more integrated for optimal flow.

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 low complexity (1 parameter), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return format, though it lacks behavioral details like pagination or error handling, preventing a perfect score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'space_key' parameter's purpose ('The Confluence space key') and provides an example ('e.g., 'TEAM', 'DOCS''), adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. With only one parameter, this is sufficient to earn a high score, though not a 5 due to lack of deeper semantic details.

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 specific action ('List all pages') and resource ('within a specific Confluence workspace'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'read_page' (which reads a single page) and 'search_confluence' (which searches across spaces). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 implies usage by specifying the required 'space_key' parameter, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_confluence'. It provides context (listing pages in a specific space) but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparative use cases with siblings.

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