ctk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that write operations are false, which is helpful. However, it doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond listing parameters), error conditions, or what happens with the 'create' action given the write restriction. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action list.

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 appropriately concise with three short sentences. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by action enumeration and a key behavioral constraint. However, the contradiction between 'create' action and 'Write operations: false' creates confusion that reduces efficiency.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or how the different actions relate to each other. The contradiction between actions and write operations creates significant confusion. The description should provide more context about this being a read-only tool despite having a 'create' action.

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 9 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it just lists action names without explaining their relationships to parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation 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 it's a unified tool for listing and getting Confluence spaces, with specific actions enumerated. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on spaces rather than attachments, comments, folders, etc. However, it mentions 'create' as an action while also stating 'Write operations: false', which creates some ambiguity about the tool's true capabilities.

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 listing available actions, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions sibling tools exist but provides no guidance on choosing between manage_spaces and other tools like manage_pages or manage_search. The 'Write operations: false' statement provides some exclusion guidance.

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