confluence_search

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses tokenization behavior, partial-title semantics, the risk of identifier fragmentation, and the recommended search strategy. It does not mention return shape or pagination behavior, but the most important behavioral quirk—CQL matching and tokenization—is clearly explained.

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 long but every sentence earns its place. It starts with the core purpose, moves to the alternative tool, then explains CQL matching rules, tokenization caveats, fallback strategy, and an example. The structure is logical and front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the phrase 'compact search metadata' is vague about what the agent will actually receive. Pagination, expand, and max_chars semantics are also missing. That said, the description is comprehensive for the most important part—constructing and choosing between CQL queries—making it minimally viable but not 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 adds strong semantics for the cql parameter with exact/partial/text matching examples and combinators. However, it does not explain limit, start, expand, or max_chars at all, leaving 4 of 5 parameters mostly inferred.

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 action and resource: 'search Confluence content with raw CQL'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling confluence_search_and_fetch by saying it returns compact metadata and exposes fields the high-level tool does not. This is far clearer than generic search descriptions.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions: when compact search metadata is needed, or when the query requires fields the other tool does not expose. It also tells the agent when NOT to use it, naming confluence_search_and_fetch for page bodies or plain queries, and provides concrete CQL matching guidance and fallback order.

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