ha_mkdir

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals recursive behavior, which is important, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., behavior if directory already exists), authentication needs, or error handling. The description adds moderate transparency but leaves gaps.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler. The key action and path constraint are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core action, recursion, and path context. However, it omits details about behavior on existing directories, permissions, or return values, which would make it 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 100% for the single 'path' parameter, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds the recursion context and confirms the relative-to-/config/ path, enhancing understanding beyond the schema. This extra behavioral context warrants a 4.

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 the verb 'Create' and the resource 'directory', specifying recursive creation and relative path. Among sibling tools, it uniquely creates directories, distinguishing it from file operations like ha_delete_file or ha_upload_file.

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 explains the tool's purpose and path context ('Path is relative to /config/'), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention scenarios like existing directories or required permissions. Usage is implied but not fully clarified.

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