confluence_list_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes a read-only operation (listing comments) and mentions pagination via cursor, but does not discuss authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format. This is adequate for a simple listing tool but lacks thoroughness.

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 concise, with a one-sentence purpose followed by a structured list of arguments. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the argument list could be more formally formatted (e.g., using bullet points).

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 simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the basics: what it does, how to paginate, and the page_id format. It does not describe the structure of returned comments, but for a listing tool this is generally acceptable.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does so effectively: page_id accepts numeric IDs or Confluence URLs, limit is capped at 100 with a default of 25, and cursor is clearly described as a pagination cursor from prior results. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'List footer comments on a Confluence page,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'confluence_list_inline_comments' by specifying 'footer comments'.

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 such as 'confluence_list_inline_comments' or other list tools. There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisite context.

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