confluence_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns title, space, and URL, but it does not address pagination, rate limits, permissions, or whether the search is read-only. While a search operation is inherently non-destructive, the absence of any safety hints or additional behavioral details leaves some gaps.

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 single sentence with an inline example, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise and every word earns its place, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, provides a usage example, and states the return fields. It does not explain pagination or result-count behavior, but given the low complexity and the schema detailing limit, this is reasonably complete.

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 schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing a concrete CQL example, clarifying the query format beyond the schema's generic 'CQL query'. The limit parameter is already well-documented in the schema, so no further description is needed.

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's function: 'Search Confluence content with CQL' with a specific verb and resource. It provides an example query and listing return fields, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_search (Jira) and confluence_get_page (retrieves a specific page).

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: searching Confluence content via CQL. The example query illustrates usage, and the return fields indicate practical output. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like jira_search or confluence_get_page, though the Confluence-specific scope is implied.

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