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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool applies patches and uses markers, but it does not mention side effects like file modification, potential for partially applied patches, rollback capability, or whether it creates files that don't exist. Key behavioral traits are missing.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses two sentences effectively, but the repeated mention of 'apply_patch format' is slightly redundant.

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 modifies files, it lacks details on safety, rollback, or how partial patches are handled. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover failure modes and post-conditions, which it omits.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds minor context about the format markers beyond the schema's generic 'Patch content' description. However, it does not explain the patch syntax (e.g., unified diff), allowed operations, or error handling if format is invalid.

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 applies a patch to files and specifies the patch format with markers. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like 'exec' or 'process', which might also apply changes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'read' or 'exec'. The description lacks context on prerequisites, such as whether files must exist or be writable, and does not mention that 'apply_patch' is specifically for applying patch diffs versus directly editing files.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains backgrounding behavior, automatic completion wake, and the necessity of using 'process' for interaction. However, it does not detail security restrictions, output handling, or timeout effects beyond what is in the schema.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise usage rules. Every sentence contributes unique information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify return values. It does not mention what the initial call returns (e.g., immediate output or a handle). However, it covers the backgrounding workflow, including the role of 'process' for logs and status, making the overall completeness high despite the ambiguity about immediate response.

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 high (86%), so baseline is 3. The description adds usage context for 'yieldMs', 'background', and 'pty', but does not significantly elaborate on parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It ties parameters to scenarios but does not introduce new semantic information.

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 'Execute shell commands' and elaborates on background continuation, distinguishing itself from sibling tools like 'process' which handles logs/status. It provides a specific verb-resource combination and explicitly differentiates usage.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use alternative tool 'process' (for logs, status, input, intervention) and when to enable 'pty=true' (TTY-required commands). It also explains the 'yieldMs/background' mechanism for continuing work later, leaving no ambiguity about context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool manages running sessions and that poll can wait up to 30000 ms (clamped). However, it doesn't mention that actions modify session state (e.g., writing data, killing), which is reasonably inferred. It also doesn't state that list returns session IDs needed for other actions, though the schema makes that somewhat clear. Very good but not exhaustive.

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 tight 4-sentence paragraph. The first sentence front-loads all actions and the tool's purpose. The next two sentences give precise when-to-use guidance. The last sentence covers the remaining actions. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 12 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description fills the behavioral gap well. It explains when to use each action type. The only missing element is a brief note that some actions (e.g., kill) are destructive or irreversible, which would have pushed completeness to 5. Still strong and sufficient for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond schema property descriptions – it simply names the action groups. The schema already describes each property's purpose (e.g., 'Hex bytes to send for send-keys'). The description adds no new parameter details or usage patterns, so it stays at baseline.

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 lists all eight supported actions (list, poll, log, write, send-keys, submit, paste, kill) and clearly states the tool manages running exec sessions. It even details specific use cases like confirming completion or getting input-wait hints. This fully distinguishes it from siblings like exec (which starts sessions) and read/apple_patch (which operate on files).

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use poll/log for status, logs, or input-wait hints, and when to use write/send-keys/submit/paste/kill for input/intervention. It also mentions the fallback when automatic completion wake is unavailable, giving actionable guidance to select among the tool's own actions. No sibling-level exclusions are needed because the tool manages already-started sessions – distinct from siblings.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: truncation to 2000 lines or 50KB, offset/limit pagination, and image handling as attachments. This goes well beyond the input schema's parameter descriptions, providing critical operational details.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence provides essential information. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, supported file types, truncation limits, and pagination strategy. It does not explicitly describe the return format for text files, but the information provided is sufficient for most use cases. A minor gap for completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the intended use of offset/limit for pagination ('Use offset/limit for large files') and clarifying that offset is 1-indexed, which is implicit in the schema but reinforced here.

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 specific verb 'read' and resource 'file', and lists supported file types (text and images). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'exec' (command execution) and 'skill_read' (reading skills) by focusing on general file reading.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool (for reading text and image files) and how to handle large files via offset/limit pagination ('use offset/limit for large files'). It lacks explicit exclusions (e.g., binary files other than images) but the context is sufficient for correct usage.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'currently eligible/model-visible' but does not specify behavior on missing skills, read-only guarantee, or potential errors. The description is minimal regarding side effects or failure conditions.

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?

Two concise sentences, no redundant wording. Every clause adds value—purpose, usage timing, and a key constraint.

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 no output schema, the description could clarify what is returned (e.g., skill content, metadata). It does not mention output details, but the tool's purpose is clear enough for selection. Slightly incomplete in describing the full interaction.

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?

The only parameter 'name' is clarified to accept either the skill name or skillKey, and explicitly excludes filesystem paths. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare string type, compensating for the lack of schema-level description.

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 reads a skill by name or skillKey, distinguishing it from sibling tools like skills_list (which lists) and read/apply_patch/exec/process (which operate on files or processes). It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use after skills_list identifies a likely match, and provides a clear constraint (does not accept filesystem paths). This fully guides when and how to use the tool.

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

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

No annotations present, so description carries full burden. It explains the tool surfaces only 'currently eligible and model-visible Skills' and describes two distinct outputs. This is adequate for a read-operation.

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?

Two sentences pack purpose, dual behavior, and constraints with zero waste. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers core functionality, parameter options, and eligibility. It could mention the return format, but is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining that 'query' triggers semantic top-k search with descriptions, while omitting it yields a names-only catalog. This clarifies the parameter's effect beyond the schema.

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 that the tool discovers local OpenClaw Skills for ChatGPT Web. It distinguishes between query and no-query modes, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'skill_read'.

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?

Provides clear context on when to pass a query vs. not, but does not mention alternatives or when to avoid using this tool.

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