ctk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only mentions 'list' as part of the purpose, but the input schema reveals actions include 'add' and 'remove' as well. It fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this tool performs mutations (add/remove), what permissions might be required, how pagination works with 'limit' and 'cursor', or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 very concise with a single sentence, which is efficient. However, it's under-specified rather than optimally structured—it could be more informative without losing brevity. The front-loading is minimal but not wasteful, earning a slightly above-average score.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, multiple actions including mutations) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, return values, or usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to invoke the tool correctly. The description should provide more context to compensate for the missing structured data.

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 input schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Unified tool for managing page labels (list)', which provides a general purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions 'managing page labels' and includes '(list)', suggesting listing is a primary function, but doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'manage_pages' or explain what 'unified' means in this context. The purpose is somewhat vague rather than clearly articulated.

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 sibling tools like 'manage_pages' or 'manage_search', nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. The '(list)' hint implies listing is involved, but no explicit usage instructions are given.

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