run_shared_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions external providers and recursive/ZIP processing, but does not disclose whether data is sent to external services, whether the operation is read-only, or what the return behavior is.

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 short and front-loaded with the core operation and input mode, with no filler words. However, it is arguably too terse for a five-parameter tool with no schema-level explanations.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain enough to invoke the tool reliably. It does not define the semantics of 'task', explain why 'filename' is required, describe return values, or clarify how 'content', 'path', and 'filename' interact.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that path or UTF-8 text can be supplied and names providers, but leaves 'task' and 'filename' unexplained, and slightly conflicts with the schema by emphasizing path while 'filename' is required.

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 identifies a concrete operation ('Prüft') on files, ZIPs, or recursive directories involving Ollama and optionally OpenClaw/Anthropic. It gives enough resource and provider context to distinguish it from sibling health/model/correction tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. It states what the tool does and how to provide input, but an agent cannot determine under which conditions to prefer this over sibling tools.

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