List Confluence page comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds essentially nothing behavioral beyond that: no mention of ordering, whether replies/inline comments are included, whether pagination results carry a total/next link, or whether extra fetches are needed for full comment bodies.

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 operation front-loaded and zero filler. The brevity is efficient, though the second sentence spends its space on pagination mechanics rather than the undocumented parameters.

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?

For a four-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin: expand is unexplained and the return shape of a comment is not described. An agent could call it, but not confidently or optimally.

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 the load, yet it only alludes to start and limit as pagination controls. The required contentId is only vaguely implied by "a content item," and expand — an array whose valid values are entirely undiscoverable — is never mentioned at all.

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 comments on a content item"), which is clear enough to distinguish it from confluence_add_comment or confluence_get_page. However, it never names the near-sibling jira_list_comments or otherwise explains scope differences across the two comment-listing tools.

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 only guidance is "Use start and limit for pagination," which is a parameter mechanic, not a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of prerequisites, no indication of when to prefer confluence_rest or confluence_search, and no exclusion of cases where this tool is the wrong choice.

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