Get Content Attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the media type quirk (application/octet-stream for binary files) and recommending filename filtering instead. It also lists the metadata fields returned, giving the agent a clear picture of the tool's output. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, a bulleted list of return metadata, a highlighted 'Important' caveat, and a 'Useful for' section. Every sentence adds value and supports tool selection or invocation. Despite its length, it remains focused and scannable.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it lists, what metadata is returned, a critical API behavior caveat, and practical use cases. It doesn't need to explain return values in detail because the output schema exists. It is complete and well-suited for an agent deciding when and how to use it.

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 all parameters are documented. The description goes beyond the schema by explicitly advising that 'filename' is a more reliable filter than 'media_type' and mentioning pattern matching support. This adds practical interpretation that the schema alone does not fully convey, warranting a score above the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all attachments for a Confluence content item (page or blog post).' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like download_attachment, upload_attachment, or delete_attachment by focusing on listing metadata rather than performing an action on files. The scope is explicit and unambiguous.

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 'Useful for' section provides clear practical contexts (discovering files, getting IDs for download, checking existence, listing for processing). It implicitly positions the tool as a precursor to download operations, which differentiates it from sibling download tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full alternative/exclusion guidance.

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