confluence_comment_list

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: auto-pagination, `kind` parameter options and default behavior, `limit=0` returns all, inline comment fields and the caveat that anchors do not follow text edits, and author IDs format. This is comprehensive and transparent.

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 a concise paragraph, front-loaded with primary purpose, followed by parameter behavior, inline specifics, and author ID resolution. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or fluff.

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, the description covers key aspects: auto-pagination, inline comment details, author IDs. However, it does not specify the complete structure of a comment object (e.g., fields like body, created date) or pagination mechanics, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some detail about inline comment fields (inline_marker_ref, durable inline_original_selection) which relates to the output rather than input parameters. For `kind` and `limit`, the description largely repeats schema descriptions.

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 comments on a Confluence page (auto-paginated)', specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like `confluence_comment_add` and `confluence_comment_audit` by focusing on listing, and mentions auto-pagination as a feature.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It provides tips on using `confluence_user_get` for author IDs and `confluence_comment_audit` for drift, but lacks a clear 'when to use this' statement. The sibling list is given, but the description itself offers no direct guidance on selection.

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