Get Page

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail that the page can be retrieved via either ID or title+space key, but it does not mention behavioral options such as metadata inclusion or markdown conversion (though these are documented in the input schema). No contradictions with annotations, and some additional context is provided, but it does not go beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 a single sentence, clear and free of unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and identification methods without redundancy.

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?

This is a simple read operation with a detailed input schema and an output schema present. The description adequately covers the essential purpose and identification logic, and the schema handles parameter semantics and return format. It is complete for the tool's complexity, though it could briefly mention that page_id takes precedence or that title requires space_key, but these are already in the schema.

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% with detailed per-parameter explanations. The tool description merely restates the ID/title+space key relationship already present in the schema, adding no new semantic meaning. Therefore, the 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 tool's function: 'Get content of a specific Confluence page' with explicit methods of identification (by ID or by title+space key). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like confluence_get_page_template or confluence_get_page_restrictions.

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 by specifying the two identification methods, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., using confluence_search when the exact ID or title is unknown). There are no exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools, so the usage context is present but incomplete.

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