Get Space Page Tree

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

With readOnlyHint=true already indicating safety, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns parent_id and depth attributes, is designed for 'token-efficient processing,' and is 'much more efficient than rendering full ASCII trees.' It doesn't discuss pagination limits or error behavior, but the annotation covers the primary safety trait, so this is a solid 4.

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 at five sentences, front-loading the core purpose immediately. Each sentence adds something: purpose, return attributes, usage tips, efficiency, and a use case. There is no repetition, filler, or tangential information.

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, combined with the annotation and full schema coverage, covers the tool's purpose, output shape (parent_id, depth), and recommended use case. An output schema exists, so return value details don't need to be in the description. Only minor gaps like pagination behavior are not explicitly mentioned, but the limit parameter covers that. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters (space_key and limit) with 100% coverage, including a default and max for limit. The description doesn't add extra parameter-level meaning; it does mention filtering by depth, but 'depth' is not an input parameter in the schema. Baseline 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 opens with 'Get page hierarchy for a Confluence space as a flat list,' which clearly specifies the verb (Get), resource (page hierarchy for a Confluence space), and output format (flat list). It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_page or get_page_children by focusing on the entire space hierarchy, not just a single page or direct children.

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 usage context: 'Use this to understand space organization before creating/moving pages.' It also gives practical tips like 'Filter by depth to focus on relevant sections, or find pages by title.' However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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