ctk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It mentions 'list' and 'download' operations but omits 'upload' and 'delete' (though these appear in the schema). It doesn't cover authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens during destructive operations like delete.

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 (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it's arguably too brief for a multi-action tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, missing opportunities to add valuable context about operation scopes or constraints.

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 complex multi-action tool (list, download, upload, delete) with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'unified' means operationally, doesn't cover all actions mentioned in the schema, and provides no information about return values or error handling.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the action verbs mentioned. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., page_id vs attachment_id requirements) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 this is a 'unified tool for Confluence attachment operations' with specific verbs (list, download) and resource (attachments). It distinguishes from sibling tools like manage_pages or manage_comments by focusing on attachments, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when to choose this over other attachment management approaches, or any context about Confluence-specific considerations. The agent must infer usage solely from the action parameter.

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