fl_call_raw

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It says the tool is an 'escape hatch' and takes 'arbitrary params,' but it does not disclose whether params are validated, whether actions can have side effects, what errors arise for invalid actions, or whether responses are structured. The raw nature is hinted at but not substantively explained.

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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence with the 'escape hatch' label first. It communicates the core purpose without filler, which is ideal for a low-level raw invocation tool.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a raw invocation design, the description leaves out important operational context: how valid actions are discovered, error behavior, safety expectations, and what the response contains. The generic escape-hatch framing may be intentional, but it is incomplete for an agent that must reliably select and invoke this tool.

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 mentions 'arbitrary params' and 'any action,' which loosely maps to the action and params fields, but it does not explain how they relate, what format params should take, or how action names correspond to bridge endpoints. The description adds minimal semantic value 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 the tool's role: 'invoke any action the main bridge accepts with arbitrary params.' It positions itself as an 'escape hatch,' which distinguishes it from the many specialized sibling tools. It is slightly vague in not defining what 'main bridge' means or what kind of actions are accepted, but it is not tautological.

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?

'Escape hatch' implies use when no dedicated tool exists for a given raw bridge action, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling tools, nor does it warn against using it when a domain-specific tool exists. The usage context is implied rather than directly explained.

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