confluence_get_comments

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 does convey that the tool returns a JSON string of comment objects, but omits any details about error handling, pagination, sorting, permissions, or behavior when the page has no comments. Basic read-only intent is inferable from 'Get', but significant behavioral context is missing.

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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is necessary and adds value; there is no redundant or tangential content.

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 one-parameter read tool with an existing output schema, the description covers the essentials: it specifies the input (page_id) and that the return is a JSON string of comments. The output schema supplements return structure details, so the description need not enumerate them. Minor gaps exist around pagination and error cases, but overall it is adequate for the tool's low complexity.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter page_id, including a detailed description with an example URL. The description adds only a terse 'Confluence page ID,' which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get comments for a specific Confluence page.' It is distinct from sibling tools like confluence_get_page or confluence_add_comment. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other comment-related tools or mention scope limitations (e.g., only retrieves top-level comments, not inline).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., page existence), exclusions, or comparison to other confluence_get_* tools. The only implied usage is that a page_id is needed, but the description stops short of advising when this tool is the right choice.

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