confluence_get_page_attachments

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide (read-only, idempotent, open-world). It does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or any side effects, though annotations cover the basic safety profile. No additional behavioral traits are revealed.

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 of six words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, immediately conveying the core functionality without any unnecessary words.

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 simple read-only getter with one parameter and strong annotations, the description is adequately complete. It does not mention return types or limitations, but given the tool's simplicity and the safety annotations, it provides a solid baseline. A brief note about the response format could push it to a 5.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'pageId' parameter documented as 'The page ID'. The description's phrase 'on a page' reinforces that the parameter refers to the parent page, but this is already evident from the parameter name and schema. No additional nuance is added.

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 'Get attachments on a page' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating it retrieves attachments belonging to a page. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_comment_attachments' and 'get_page_comments' by explicitly scoping to page-level attachments.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no mention of when this tool would be preferred over similar tools like 'get_page' or 'get_page_properties'. No contextual guidance is offered.

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