confluence_list_pending_page_updates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It successfully discloses that the tool reads from MCP server memory and that the updates are not written to Confluence, indicating a read-only operation. However, it could further mention that no data is modified or destroyed.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and follows with key context about the data location.

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 no output schema and one optional parameter, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and data origin. However, it is incomplete regarding the return format (e.g., what fields are in the list). Additional details would improve 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with one optional parameter 'pageId', whose description clearly says 'Only list pending updates for this Confluence page ID'. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 staged page updates kept in MCP server memory. These drafts have not been written to Confluence.' It specifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'staged page updates', and distinguishes from sibling tools like commit, discard, and get by emphasizing the listing of all pending updates in memory.

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 basic context (listing drafts before committing), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'confluence_get_pending_page_update'. There is no mention of when-not to use it or which scenarios it is best suited for.

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