confluence_get_blog_post_footer_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination (use cursor), default trimming behavior, and the full=true option to get raw response. This is sufficient for a read operation, though it doesn't mention authentication or rate limits (likely implicit).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, followed by pagination and trimming details. Every sentence is informative and necessary—no wasted 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential: operation, pagination, trimming, and the full flag. It could be enhanced by mentioning the required blogPostId (but schema covers it) or comment format options, but it's largely sufficient.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'full' parameter's purpose (bypass trimming) and the cursor's role in pagination. This goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions, raising the score to 4.

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 action ('Get footer comments') and the resource ('on a specific blog post'), providing a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools for pages or inline comments.

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 mentions pagination and output trimming but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like confluence_get_page_footer_comments or confluence_get_page_inline_comments. No explicit exclusions or context for choosing among comment-related tools.

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