confluence_list_attachments

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination via limit and cursor, and the ability to accept URLs for page_id. However, it does not describe what happens on errors, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the structure of the returned data. Some behavioral aspects are covered, but gaps remain.

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 only four lines, including an Args section. It is efficient, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence provides essential information. No extraneous text.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format or contents of the attachments list, nor does it cover error conditions or edge cases. The 'attachments' term is vague, and without an output schema, the agent needs more context to interpret results.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool's description provides meaningful context for all three parameters: page_id can be a numeric ID or URL, limit has a max of 100, and cursor is for pagination. This adds value beyond the schema's type and default fields.

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 'List attachments on a Confluence page,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling attachment tools (upload, download, delete) by focusing on listing. The description also clarifies that page_id can be a numeric ID or a URL, which adds specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like download_attachment or list_comments. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusion scenarios. The user must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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