confluence_get_comment_thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains recursive traversal, bounding via max_depth and max_items, and explicitly mentions partial/truncated status in the response. It stops short of describing error behavior or full return structure, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 with high signal-to-noise. The core action is front-loaded, the alternative usage is named, and the key traversal constraints are stated without repeating schema details. No fluff or filler.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, recursion bounds, and truncation status, but it does not explain the expected response shape or the semantics of max_chars and body_format. This leaves an agent with some uncertainty about request formatting and output parsing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains max_depth and max_items ('bound recursive traversal') and the 'footer or inline' wording maps to comment_type, but max_chars and body_format semantics are left entirely to the schema. This is a noticeable gap with six parameters present.

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?

States a specific verb ('get') and resource ('one footer or inline comment plus its reply tree'), which clearly differentiates it from single-comment and list-comment siblings. The phrase 'in one MCP call' further clarifies the intended scope and distinguishes it from tools requiring multiple calls.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to prefer this tool over repeatedly calling confluence_get_comment and child-comment endpoints, giving clear guidance on when to choose it. However, it does not mention conditions where a flatter list or single-comment tool would be more appropriate.

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