confluence_restriction_get

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the output format (YAML), notes the nested structure, and implies read-only behavior via 'Show'. It does not discuss auth or rate limits but is transparent about output complexity.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and output, second adds CLI mirroring. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and output format. It mentions per-operation arrays. It could elaborate on potential errors or empty results, but overall adequate.

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 single parameter content_id is described in the schema as 'Confluence page (content) ID.' The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline score 3 applies.

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 shows read/update restrictions on a Confluence page, and specifies the output format (raw JSON as YAML). It distinguishes from sibling tools like grant/revoke by focusing on viewing.

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 implies usage for viewing restrictions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like grant/revoke. No when-not guidance is provided.

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