get_child_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral aspects. It only states the core action without any additional context such as pagination, ordering, whether it includes archived pages, or what happens if the page has no children. There is no mention of authentication or performance implications. This is a minimal description with no extra behavioral insight.

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, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. No superfluous information. This is efficient and meets the standard for conciseness, though it might be slightly too minimal for full credit.

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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema), the description is somewhat adequate, but it leaves out key details like whether it returns only direct children (it does say 'direct' though), and any behavioral nuances. The annotations are absent, so the description is the only source of context. It could mention that it does not recursively list all descendants, which would be helpful. The absence of output schema means the agent doesn't know what to expect in the response, but the description doesn't clarify either.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It does mention 'page_id' implicitly by saying 'direct child pages of a Confluence page', which implies the page_id parameter identifies the parent. However, it doesn't clarify the format (e.g., numeric ID or string), or that the page_id is the ID of the parent page. The schema has only one parameter, so the description provides some context but could be more explicit about the parameter's role.

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 lists direct child pages of a Confluence page, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('direct child pages'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_page (which likely retrieves a single page) and search_confluence (which searches). However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it only returns direct children, which is a slight gap.

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 implies usage: when you need to list child pages of a specific page. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_confluence or get_page, but the purpose is clear enough. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so it's adequate but not explicit.

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