Поиск по CQL

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as return format (e.g., number of results, snippet vs full content), error handling for invalid CQL, or performance implications. The example is helpful but insufficient for full transparency.

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 one short sentence plus an example, with no extraneous information. It front-loads the purpose and is highly efficient.

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 tool has only two parameters and no complex nested objects, so the description is somewhat adequate. However, the lack of output schema means the return format is not described, leaving a gap in completeness for a search tool that could return varied results.

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 the baseline is 3. The description provides an example that adds some context to the 'cql' parameter, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema's descriptions already provide. No additional parameter semantics are given.

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 is for searching content in Confluence using CQL, with a concrete example that distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle specific pages, comments, or attachments.

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 general search queries, but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus siblings like `confluence_get_page` or `confluence_get_page_by_title`, nor does it provide scenarios where it is not appropriate.

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