confluence_attachment_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full transparency burden. It explains pagination behavior but does not explicitly state that this tool is read-only or has no side effects. The default limit and cursor usage are disclosed, but additional behavioral traits (e.g., authentication needs, rate limits) are absent.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: purpose, pagination usage, default and mirror. No wasted words, front-loaded with core functionality.

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 covers pagination and defaults but lacks details on return format (e.g., what fields are in each attachment). Given no output schema, mentioning that it returns attachment metadata would improve completeness. For a simple list tool, it is adequate but has a gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces parameter usage (limit defaults to 25, cursor pagination) but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. The mirroring note is not param-related.

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 lists attachments on a Confluence page, with the specificity 'one page per call'. The verb 'List' and resource 'attachments on a Confluence page' are precise. Among siblings, there is no other attachment listing tool, so it is well-differentiated.

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 explains how to use pagination ('Pass the returned next_cursor back as cursor') and notes the default limit. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for non-attachment content, use other reading tools). The guidance for pagination is clear.

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