confluence_get_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool uses REST API v1 and that it serves as a fallback for content shapes/expansions not available in v2, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention read-only guarantees, error behaviors, response format, or any rate limits, leaving notable gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Get a generic Confluence content item') and then adds the conditional context. There is no redundant filler or irrelevant 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, return shape, or how to distinguish this from the many sibling get tools beyond the v1 fallback condition. An agent would still need to consult external documentation to use it correctly.

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 for all three parameters. It only vaguely references 'expansion' (relating to the expand parameter) but provides no meaning for content_id or max_chars. This is insufficient for an agent to understand what values to pass or their purpose.

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 states a specific verb ('get'), a resource ('generic Confluence content item'), and a clear context ('through REST API v1 when v2 does not expose the needed content shape or expansion'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_page or get_comment, which target specific content types via v2.

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 a clear condition for when to use this tool ('when v2 does not expose the needed content shape or expansion'), giving agents a decision rule. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tools (e.g., confluence_get_page) or state when NOT to use it beyond that condition, so it stops short of a full 5.

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