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. It only lists action names without explaining what each action does, what permissions are required, whether operations are destructive, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool with create/update/delete capabilities, this lack of behavioral information is significant.

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 - a single parenthetical phrase. While efficient, it's arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise. It front-loads the key information (unified folder operations) but omits important details about the full action set.

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 with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the six different behaviors, their outcomes, error conditions, or return formats. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without extensive trial and error.

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%, providing comprehensive parameter documentation. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 tool's purpose as a 'unified tool for Confluence folder operations' and lists the specific actions (list, get, get_children). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on folders rather than attachments, comments, pages, etc. However, it only mentions three of the six available actions, omitting create, update, and delete.

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. The description doesn't mention sibling tools or explain why one would choose this unified folder tool over separate tools for different operations. There's no context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases.

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