read_confluence_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It describes the inputs and output formats but does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. The name implies read-only, but transparency is basic.

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?

Three concise sentences with no wasted words. The key information (what it does, how to identify pages, output formats, use case) is front-loaded and efficiently conveyed.

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?

The description covers the core functionality for a read tool. It does not detail return metadata (e.g., version, space) but the expand parameter controls that. For a tool focused on quick text reading, it is largely complete. Minor gap: no mention of authentication or that it's safe to call repeatedly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining identification methods and format options, but does not significantly extend the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., 'expand' is already well-documented).

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 tool retrieves Confluence page content, distinguishes between specifying by ID or title+space, and notes output formats. The bold line 'Use this for quickly reading the text content of a page' differentiates it from siblings like download_confluence_attachment or get_page_with_attachments.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('quickly reading the text content of a page'). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the context is sufficient given the sibling list includes many write-oriented tools.

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