confluence_get_page_watchers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the basic read operation, but with annotations covering the main concerns, a 3 is appropriate since it does not contradict annotations.

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 short, single-sentence, and front-loaded with the action. It is concise and to the point, though it could be slightly more descriptive without adding unnecessary length.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and high schema coverage. The description is adequate for a read-only operation, but it could be more complete by mentioning what the output might look like (e.g., list of user objects) or any limitations. Given no output schema, a bit more detail would help.

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% (the only parameter 'pageId' is described as 'The page ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter details, but given the schema fully documents the parameter, this is sufficient.

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 states the action ('Get users') and the resource ('watching a page') clearly. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_page_labels or get_page_comments, so it scores a 4, though it could be more specific about whether it returns watchers for a given page ID.

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 context is clear: it is for retrieving watchers for a specific page, and the pageId parameter is required. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites (e.g., need page ID obtained from another tool).

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