confluence_list_descendants

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well. It discloses that the tool returns the API response as-is, includes Confluence's 'Versions of ...' containers, and explains the effect of include_version_history=false. It also clarifies flat ordering and single-page behavior, which are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from the schema alone.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core primitive behavior appears first, followed by the key version-history nuance, then the usage guidance and preferred alternative. Every sentence contributes useful information with no 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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the most important behavioral and routing context: raw response, pagination, version history, and when to prefer a sibling. The main gap is that several parameters remain semantically undocumented, so the context is strong but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain include_version_history and cursor behavior, and it mentions 'page or folder' which maps to parent_type. However, it does not explain depth, limit, max_chars, or parent_id semantics, leaving several parameters dependent on the agent's inference from names and schema constraints.

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 action and resource: 'list one paginated descendants response below a page or folder, in flat top-to-bottom order.' It also distinguishes the tool from the rendered-hierarchy alternative, confluence_get_content_tree, by calling itself a 'Primitive' and emphasizing raw API responses and manual cursor control.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use it when a raw page of descendants or manual cursor control is needed,' and the sibling to prefer instead is named with the reason: 'For a rendered hierarchy with pagination handled server-side... prefer confluence_get_content_tree.' This directly tells an agent when to choose this tool versus the alternative.

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