list_attachments_on_page

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

The description says 'Lists all attachments,' but the schema exposes limit (default 50, max 100) and start pagination, so results are actually paginated and capped. This is a meaningful behavioral detail the description fails to disclose. With no annotations, the description also does not mention output shape, response format, or any other behavior beyond the basic listing action.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately conveys the action, resource, and available filters. There is no wasted wording, though some behavioral details are missing.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior, but it omits pagination semantics, result shape, and how the returned attachments relate to download/upload sibling tools. The 'all' wording actively conflicts with the limit/start parameters, making the definition incomplete for an agent.

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 100%, so all parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description only restates that filtering by filename or media type is possible, adding no new semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Lists all attachments for a specific Confluence page.' It also mentions the filename and media type filters. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_page_with_attachments or list_attachments_uploaded_by_user, but the page-scoped wording makes the primary intent 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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as list_attachments_uploaded_by_user, get_page_with_attachments, or download_confluence_attachment. The description implies a page-scoped use case but provides no exclusions or alternative routing.

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