List Confluence attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description contributes only the pagination note and says nothing about ordering, total counts, or what happens with an invalid contentId.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, but the second sentence spends its space on the least ambiguous parameters rather than the undocumented ones.

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?

With 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain contentId and expand. As written, an agent cannot tell what identifier format is expected or what expand accepts, leaving real gaps for a listing tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only mentions start and limit as pagination controls and leaves contentId and expand entirely unexplained. Defaults, the limit of 100, and what expand values are valid are absent.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List attachments on a Confluence content item'), which is enough to separate it from siblings like confluence_list_comments and confluence_get_page. It stops short of naming the sibling it complements, so it lands just below a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus confluence_get_page (which may also expose attachments) or confluence_rest, and no prerequisites such as needing a valid content id or read permissions. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement.

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