goclaw_custom_tool_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify permissions needed, whether the tool is idempotent, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing tools), or error handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool that creates custom tools with 6 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'custom tool' entails in GoClaw, how the created tool integrates with the system, or what happens post-creation (e.g., success response or error cases). This leaves critical gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like 'parameters' and 'command'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('new custom tool in GoClaw'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'goclaw_custom_tool_update' or 'goclaw_custom_tool_invoke', which would require more specific context about when to create versus update or invoke.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'goclaw_custom_tool_update' and 'goclaw_custom_tool_invoke', there's no indication of prerequisites (e.g., tool must not exist), appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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