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. It states the tool is for 'search' but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., results format, pagination behavior), performance characteristics (e.g., rate limits), or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 core purpose ('unified tool for Confluence search') and specifies the two search types. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the two search methods for 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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are formatted, or any behavioral traits like error handling. For a search tool with multiple parameters and no structured output information, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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 already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'action', 'cql', and 'query', or providing usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 the tool's purpose as a 'unified tool for Confluence search' that supports both CQL and quick text search. It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('Confluence'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like manage_pages or manage_spaces, which might also involve search functionality in their contexts.

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 implies usage by mentioning two search methods ('CQL and quick text search'), but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't specify scenarios where search is preferred over browsing through sibling tools like manage_pages or manage_spaces, leaving usage context somewhat ambiguous.

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