get_confluence_pages_mentioning_me

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that this is a read/search operation returning matching pages and clarifies 'mention' as '@mention', but it omits details like authentication needs, ordering, pagination behavior, and whether only accessible spaces are included.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, and the second usefully clarifies that 'mention' specifically means @mention.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with complete schema coverage and clear return semantics, so the description is largely sufficient for invocation. It would benefit from a note about pagination defaults or differentiation from the broader search_pages_by_user_involvement tool, but nothing critical 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?

All three parameters (limit, start, spaceKey) are fully documented in the schema with descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the 100% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('pages'), and the key filter ('where you have been @mentioned'). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from related tools like list_pages_created_by_user or read_confluence_page.

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 use case is implied clearly: find pages mentioning the current user. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over search_pages_by_user_involvement or search_confluence_pages, nor any stated exclusions or alternatives.

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