femm_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses catalog pre-validation, that warnings (arity/type mismatches, unknown names, pyFEMM-only helpers like mo_getb) are surfaced in `warnings`, and crucially that the call is still sent unless the name is unknown to both catalog and engine. Automatic string quoting and the non-conversion of complex values are also stated.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and an example, then the validation/warning semantics, then the femm_eval pointer. The two examples and the cross-reference to femm_api_search each earn their place; no filler sentences.

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 generic passthrough tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers invocation, validation, and warning behavior well. It does not describe what a successful call returns beyond the `warnings` field, and omits the session parameter, leaving minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does well for `args` (positional, with two worked examples, plus quoting and complex-value rules) and `command` (a catalog command name). However, the `session` parameter (default 'main') is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Call any FEMM 5 scripting command by name with positional args') and grounds it with two concrete call examples. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like femm_eval, femm_run_script, and femm_run_lua, which are different mechanisms rather than a single named command.

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?

Gives clear context (raw command passthrough) and an explicit alternative with a condition: complex values should go through femm_eval instead, and femm_api_search is named for discovery. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over femm_run_script/femm_run_lua for multi-statement work, so it lacks full exclusion coverage.

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