get_page_with_attachments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It discloses that attachments are base64-encoded, which is critical for handling the response. It also notes that attachments are optional via the includeAttachments parameter. However, it does not discuss rate limits, authentication requirements, or performance implications for large pages.

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 concise, consisting of a single sentence plus a bolded usage hint. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose. The first sentence could be slightly trimmed, but overall it is efficient and to the point.

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 4 parameters (all described in schema) and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and key behavior (base64 encoding). However, it lacks explanation of the return structure or how to handle the downloaded data. For a comprehensive download tool, additional details about the response format would improve completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds the note about base64 encoding, which is not in the schema. However, this is the only additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'download', the resource 'Confluence page', and the scope 'full content, metadata, and optionally, all of its attachments'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_confluence_page' (which likely doesn't include attachments) and 'list_attachments_on_page' (which lists but doesn't download). The mention of base64 encoding adds specificity.

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 includes bolded guidance: 'Use this when you need the page content, metadata, and all associated attachments.' This explicitly tells when to use it. While it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, the sibling tools provide context, and the guidance is clear enough.

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