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 lists action types but doesn't explain permissions required, rate limits, side effects of mutations (create/update/delete), pagination behavior beyond the 'limit' parameter, or what the tool returns. For a tool with 11 possible actions including destructive operations, this is inadequate.

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 that front-loads the key information: it's a unified tool for page operations and lists all actions. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., grouping read vs. write actions). Every word earns its place.

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 high complexity (17 parameters, 11 actions including mutations), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address critical context like authentication requirements, error conditions, response formats, or behavioral differences between actions. For a multi-action tool with no structured safety hints, more descriptive guidance 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 all 17 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the action list, which partially maps to the 'action' parameter values. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description provides marginal context but no additional parameter semantics.

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 page operations' and enumerates the specific actions available (get, get_by_title, list, etc.). It effectively communicates the tool's scope as a multi-function page management utility, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like manage_spaces or manage_attachments beyond the 'page operations' focus.

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, appropriate contexts, or compare it to sibling tools like manage_search for finding pages or manage_spaces for space-level operations. The agent must infer usage solely from the action list and parameter schema.

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