confluence_compare

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it walks the ADF tree, splits into sections, reports per-block changes, and discusses budget truncation. This transparency helps the agent understand side effects and limitations. A 5 would require more explicit discussion of what gets destroyed or auth needs, but as a read operation it is sufficient.

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 well-structured with the core purpose first, followed by details on version references and detail levels. Sentences are purposeful but could be slightly more terse. It is not overly long for the information conveyed.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the diff approach and versioning well but does not fully explain the return format or how to interpret the results. It provides some guidance via detail levels, but a complete description would include an example of the output structure.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage and all parameters are documented. The description adds context for version ref formats and detail levels, but does not substantially augment the schema's already clear parameter definitions. Baseline 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 the tool compares two versions of a Confluence page and explains the nature of the diff (structurally-aware, per-block). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely related sibling `confluence_compare_section`, which would help an agent choose between them.

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?

While the description details the version references and detail levels, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `confluence_compare_section` or other Confluence tools. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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