conf_get_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The only behavioral claim the description makes is "(one page)", which gestures at a pagination boundary but never says whether results are truncated, what the default limit is, or how to page further — leaving the one piece of genuinely new behavior ambiguous.

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?

At five words it is certainly front-loaded and contains no filler, but the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than efficiency. The parenthetical is the only structural addition and it introduces ambiguity instead of removing it.

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 three-parameter listing tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description does far too little: no return-shape hint, no pagination contract, no mention of ordering or permissions. Annotations cover the safety profile, but nothing covers how to call it correctly.

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% across three parameters (pageId, limit, start), so the description carries the full burden of explaining them. It only implicitly covers pageId via the word "page" and says nothing about limit or start, so an agent gets no help on the two pagination parameters that matter most.

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?

States a verb ("List") and a resource ("page comments"), which distinguishes it from the write-side sibling conf_add_comment. However, the parenthetical "(one page)" is ambiguous — it could mean comments on a single Confluence page or a single page of paginated results, and the description never resolves which. The core purpose is guessable but not stated with precision.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as conf_get_page or conf_add_comment, nor any prerequisite or context statement. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the sibling list.

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