search_confluence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching 'across allowed Confluence spaces,' which hints at access restrictions, but doesn't detail what 'allowed' entails (e.g., permissions, authentication needs). It also omits key behavioral traits like pagination handling (implied by 'start' and 'limit' parameters but not explained), rate limits, or error conditions. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It uses clear language ('Search for content across allowed Confluence spaces by text and/or title') and avoids redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks depth in behavioral context and usage guidelines. Without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values (e.g., result format, pagination details), and with no annotations, it misses safety or operational traits. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it only mentions searching 'by text and/or title,' which corresponds to the 'query' and 'title' parameters but doesn't elaborate further. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate with additional semantic context.

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 content across allowed Confluence spaces by text and/or title.' It specifies the action (search), resource (content in Confluence spaces), and scope (allowed spaces). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_space_content' which might also retrieve content, though the search functionality is implied.

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 'allowed Confluence spaces' but doesn't clarify what this means or how it differs from siblings like 'get_space_content' or 'list_spaces'. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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