confluence_get_footer_comment

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations (none provided): output is trimmed by default and what gets dropped (_links, _expandable, body content). It also explains how to get raw response with 'full=true'. This adds value for an agent.

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, no redundant words. The main action is first, followed by a key behavioral note. Perfectly concise.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the trimming behavior. It is sufficient for a simple getter, but could mention that the output is a Confluence comment object structure. Still, it's adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds context for the 'full' parameter (bypass trimming) which is not in schema. For 'bodyFormat', the schema already describes it. Overall, good augmentation.

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 'Get a specific footer comment by ID', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'confluence_get_page_footer_comments' (which lists comments) by specifying 'by 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 description implies usage when you have a comment ID, but does not explicitly contrast with listing tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. However, the context of 'by ID' is sufficient for most agents.

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