search_confluence_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool performs a search and uses CQL, which implies read-only behavior, but does not disclose any specific behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or return format.

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 clear, front-loaded sentences with no extraneous information. Each word serves a purpose.

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 the tool's complexity (CQL search with 4 parameters) and no output schema, the description is minimal. It adequately explains the tool's function but could benefit from additional context about CQL syntax or result behavior.

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% with all parameters described. The description adds value by providing an example CQL query for the 'cql' parameter, which clarifies usage beyond the schema's basic description.

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 searches for Confluence pages using CQL, specifying the verb 'search' and resource 'Confluence pages'. However, it does not distinguish from similar sibling tools like 'search_pages_by_user_involvement' which also searches pages but by user involvement rather than CQL.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'search_pages_by_user_involvement', 'search_jira_issues'). Only states it is 'useful for finding pages that match specific criteria' without providing context for when to prefer CQL over other search methods.

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