bw_get_ckf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Read') and details what is returned, including recursive resolution and dependency graphs. No behavioral contradictions are present.

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 no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource, making the purpose immediately clear.

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?

The description covers what the tool returns without an output schema, listing key components. While it could specify the exact output format, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's capability.

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% (one parameter with full description). The description adds context by specifying the CKF is at the CompositeProvider level, enriching the parameter's meaning beyond the schema's technical name hint.

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 clearly states it reads a global CKF at CompositeProvider level and specifies the exact return data (technical name, description, formula, metadata, dependency graph). This differentiates it from sibling tools like bw_get_rkf which deals with RKFs.

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?

While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the description and tool name make it clear that it is intended for CKF retrieval. The context is implied but could be more explicit about exclusions.

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