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 mentions the two action types but doesn't describe what 'get_current' returns (current user? session user?), doesn't explain authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the search results look like. For a user management tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 at just two sentences with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists the available actions. Every sentence 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 this is a user management tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what data is returned, how results are structured, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a tool that presumably returns user data, the lack of output information is particularly problematic.

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 three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing the two action types, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Search and get Confluence users' with specific actions 'get_current' and 'search'. This provides a clear verb+resource combination, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'manage_search' which might also involve search operations.

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 lists actions but doesn't explain when to choose 'get_current' versus 'search', nor does it mention any prerequisites or contextual factors that would guide selection among the sibling tools.

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