confluence_find_pages_for_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It usefully reveals the two-step approach: remote links first, then CQL title search, which is important because title matches may not be linked pages. But it does not mention read-only safety, result ordering, pagination, or other behavioral details.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to defining the tool's purpose and method.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is thin. It does not explain what the result contains, how spaceKey influences the CQL search, or how limit applies. It gives a usable high-level intent but not enough standalone guidance for a complex call.

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 only 33%, with only issueKey documented. The description does not explain limit or spaceKey, and its mention of 'Jira issue' mostly reinforces issueKey rather than adding meaning. It therefore fails to compensate for the low parameter documentation coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Find Confluence pages for a Jira issue.' It also names the mechanism ('using remote links, then CQL title search'), which distinguishes it from general Confluence page search tools such as confluence_search_pages.

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 scopes this tool to page discovery tied to a specific Jira issue, giving the agent a clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks the exclusionary guidance of a 5.

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