CTT Code exposes 24 tools with basic schemas and descriptions, but falls short of production quality. Most tools have descriptions (good), but many are generic or under-specified. Parameter descriptions are sparse or missing entirely. No output schemas documented. Error handling is absent, tools return success/failure without recovery guidance. Tool naming is inconsistent (cttChat vs ctt_execute; openFolder vs terminalCreate). No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). Destructive tools like deleteEntry lack confirmation patterns. Terminal and file operations are well-structured, but ctt-shell bridge tools are under-documented. Average tool score: 42/100.

• Consolidate duplicate tools: merge cttExecute/ctt_execute, cttSearch/ctt_search, cttChat/ctt_shell into single canonical tools with clear naming (execute_goal, search_knowledge, send_shell_command).
• Document output schemas for all tools. E.g. listFiles returns {files: [{name, path, isDirectory}]}; readFile returns {content: string, language: string}. Include in tool definition or separate schema doc.
• Add tool annotations: mark readFile/listFiles/searchFiles with readOnlyHint=true; mark deleteEntry/writeFile/createFile with destructiveHint=true; mark idempotent tools with idempotentHint=true.
• Expand ctt-shell tool descriptions to 100-150 chars explaining: what it does, when to use it vs alternatives, what it returns, and failure modes. E.g. 'Executes a goal via ctt-shell with plan and execution. Returns {result, plan, status}. Use for multi-step tasks; use ctt_search for knowledge lookup only.'
• Add confirmation pattern to deleteEntry: return {requiresConfirmation: true, preview: 'Will delete X files/folders'} on first call; require a confirm=true parameter on retry. Prevents accidental data loss.