confluence_list_inline_comments

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral aspects. It clarifies the nature of inline comments vs footer comments and mentions pagination, but fails to state read-only status, permission requirements, or output behavior.

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 two paragraphs: one for purpose and distinction, one for parameter details. No redundant sentences, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 description explains parameters and the difference from footer comments, but lacks details on the response structure (e.g., fields returned, cursor for next page) and error scenarios. It is adequate but not fully complete for a tool with no output schema.

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 add value. It adds context for page_id (accepts numeric ID or URL), limit (default 25, max 100), and cursor (pagination token), which is not captured in the schema alone.

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 inline (annotation) comments on a Confluence page' and distinguishes these from footer comments, making the purpose specific and differentiated from siblings like 'confluence_list_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 explains when to use the tool (to get comments anchored to text selections) and implicitly when not (for footer comments). It also describes input parameters, but does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions to avoid.

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