confluence_export_page

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

The description clarifies that the tool returns an export URL rather than the file itself, adding transparency beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention potential side effects or limitations, though annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior.

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 directly conveys the core functionality without unnecessary detail. It avoids fluff and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 there is no output schema, the description sufficiently indicates the result (an export URL). It does not elaborate on error handling or response format, but for a straightforward export tool, this is adequate. Slightly more detail could improve completeness.

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?

The schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (pageId and format) with an enum for format and a default. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating the format options. Coverage is high, so a baseline score 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 the tool's function: obtaining an export URL for a page in PDF or Word format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve page content, properties, or other data, making its purpose 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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of others, such as when a user needs to download a page as a document. It implies this by mentioning export, but lacks direct guidance on appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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