confluence_search_pages

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: the use of CQL, the nature of returned data (opaque legacy storage HTML), and the advice to fetch page by ID for ADF body. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or search scoping, which would add further transparency.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and provide a critical warning. Every sentence serves a clear purpose, with no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and the caveat about the content field. It also references a sibling tool for proper content retrieval. Minor missing details like pagination do not significantly detract from completeness.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds value by specifying that the query parameter is a CQL string, which is more specific than the schema's 'Text to search for in pages' description. This helps the agent use the correct query syntax.

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 it searches Confluence pages by text query using CQL, and returns matching pages. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like confluence_get_page (for fetching a single page) and other search 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 description explicitly tells when to use this tool (search by text query) and warns that the `content` field is opaque and should not be relied upon. It also suggests using confluence_get_page for proper content, providing guidance on alternative usage.

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