tenki_make_dir

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-destructive operation. The description adds a useful mkdir -p analogy and explains recursive behavior, but it does not clarify what happens if the directory already exists, whether partial failures occur, or any permission-related behavior. It is adequate for a simple mkdir 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the recursive behavior is explained in one clear clause. Every word earns its place.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: what it does, where it applies, and the one edge case that matters. Minor details like behavior on existing directories or failure modes are not covered, but the schema and annotations fill most practical gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes all three parameters, including the recursive behavior and the path under /home/tenki. The description only restates the recursive concept with the mkdir -p analogy, adding little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 ('Create a directory') and a clear target ('in a sandbox'), which immediately distinguishes it from file manipulation siblings like read, write, remove, and move. It also mentions the recursive flag, so an agent can tell exactly what the tool does without opening the schema.

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 clearly establishes the use case: creating a directory in a sandbox, with the recursive option covering missing parent directories. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's purpose is narrow and unambiguous given the sibling set.

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