search_confluence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the CQL full-text search mechanism, the returned fields (title, url, excerpt, relevance score), and the mechanism_signal filtering behavior with rationale. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or pagination, but it provides substantial behavioral context.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds relevant information: what is searched, how results are shaped, and when filtering occurs. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a useful picture of result shape and ranking behavior. It also explains the non-obvious mechanism_signal behavior. The main gaps are a fuller explanation of the cql parameter and explicit handling of result limits, but overall it is adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains mechanism_signal, including its expected value type and filtering effect. Query and max_results are reasonably self-evident from their names, but cql is only indirectly referenced via 'Uses CQL full-text search' and is not clearly defined.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the Confluence knowledge base', and immediately states the result type ('ranked, normalised results'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_tickets and get_page by naming the Confluence knowledge base as the target.

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 clearly frames the tool as a Confluence search tool, which implicitly differentiates it from search_tickets and page-fetching siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools by name.

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