confluence_get_page

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

The GET method implies a read-only fetch, but there are no annotations and the description discloses no further behavior such as return payload shape, error behavior, or the effect of bodyFormat. This is acceptable for a simple getter but does not add much behavioral context beyond the operation itself.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the endpoint for precision. There is no filler or redundant 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 tool is simple and the schema covers all parameters, but with no output schema and no annotations, the return value shape remains undocumented. It is enough to make a basic call with pageId, but it lacks richer context about what the agent will receive back.

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%, so the schema already documents both pageId and bodyFormat adequately. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 specific resource (a page) and the exact REST endpoint, which is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like confluence_get_page_descendants or confluence_get_page_footer_comments. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with those siblings, so it stops short of 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 tool versus alternatives such as confluence_get_page_descendants, confluence_get_pages_in_space, or confluence_search_cql. The agent is left to infer the correct choice from the tool name and sibling names.

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