search_confluence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches for content and returns a dictionary with results, but it lacks details on behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or how search results are ordered/filtered. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 in a clear sentence. The additional 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured but could be more integrated; they add necessary details without redundancy. A minor deduction for slight structural separation, but overall efficient.

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 moderate complexity (search functionality), no annotations, and an output schema present (which covers return values), the description is partially complete. It explains the purpose and basic I/O but lacks context on usage guidelines, behavioral details, and parameter nuances. The output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but gaps in other areas make it only adequate.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It defines 'query' as a 'Search query string to find content in Confluence,' which provides basic meaning. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is high (4 for 0 params), but the description does not fully compensate by explaining query syntax, examples, or constraints (e.g., wildcards, field-specific searches), so it scores slightly below baseline.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search for pages, blog posts, or attachments in Confluence.' It specifies the verb ('Search') and the resources ('pages, blog posts, or attachments'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_space_content' or 'read_page' (e.g., by noting this is a general search vs. space-specific listing or direct page reading), which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions what it searches for but does not specify contexts (e.g., 'use this for broad queries across all content types' vs. 'use list_space_content for content within a specific space') or exclusions. This lack of comparative information leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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