ctk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions actions like 'add_footer' and 'reply' which imply write operations, but doesn't disclose permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond listing actions, failing to compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence listing the actions. It's front-loaded with the tool's scope ('Unified tool for Confluence comments') and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be more structured by briefly explaining each action to improve clarity.

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?

Given the complexity of 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or the behavioral implications of actions like 'add_footer' (a write operation). For a multi-action tool with significant functionality gaps, more context is needed.

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 parameters. The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the difference between 'list_footer' and 'list_inline' actions). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 the tool is for 'Confluence comments' and lists specific actions, providing a general purpose. However, it doesn't specify what each action does (e.g., what 'list_footer' means) or distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'manage_pages' or 'manage_search' beyond the comment focus. It's clear but vague on specifics.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'manage_pages' for page-related operations or other comment tools. The description only lists action names without context on appropriate scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameter descriptions.

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