scan_confluence

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

The description discloses all behavioral traits: it explicitly states the tool never modifies Confluence, details authentication requirements, describes side effects (uploading redacted/encrypted data to backend), mentions rate limits, and explains data handling (redacted output, no raw secrets). This goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) and adds significant value.

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, well-organized paragraph that front-loads the purpose and safety, then covers auth, side effects, and optional behaviors. It is concise but includes necessary details; a minor improvement could be breaking it into bullet points for readability.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, external APIs, side effects), the description covers all essential context: authentication, safety (no modification), side effects (backend upload), data protection (redaction), rate limits, and optional features. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need to be detailed in the description.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds extra meaning by explaining fallback logic for auth parameters and grouping related options (e.g., allow_secret_upload, ai_analysis). This provides context beyond the schema, warranting a score above the baseline of 3.

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 purpose: 'Read Confluence pages and comments to detect leaked secrets (API keys, tokens, passwords).' It uses a specific verb (read), target resource (Confluence pages/comments), and goal (detect secrets), differentiating it from other scan_ tools by naming Confluence.

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 provides clear usage context: it specifies authentication methods (env vars or direct params), declares it never modifies Confluence, and mentions side effects (upload to backend). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternative scanning tools, nor does it provide exclusions.

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