read_confluence_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does indicate a non-destructive read ('Retrieves', 'reading') and discloses format behavior (storage vs markdown). However, it does not mention error cases, required-permission implications, or what happens if both pageId and title/spaceKey are provided. The core retrieval behavior is clear but additional behavioral context is limited.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The main capability is front-loaded, the addressing options follow, and the bolded usage intent is concise and actionable. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is largely complete for a read tool: how to identify the page, what format is returned, and intended use. No output schema exists, but the description clarifies the content return concept. It could be slightly richer by stating precedence or exclusivity between pageId and title/spaceKey, but an agent can invoke correctly with the given information.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds the useful grouping that pageId OR title+spaceKey can be used, but otherwise does not materially extend the schema's parameter documentation. This matches the baseline for high 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 ('Retrieves') with a clear resource ('content of a Confluence page') and explains the two identification methods (ID or title+spaceKey). It also signals position among siblings by focusing on 'quickly reading the text content', distinguishing it from attachment-centric or search tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: for quickly reading a page's text content, with ID or title-based lookup. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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