goclaw_custom_tool_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get details' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loaded with the essential action, making it efficient for an 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what details are returned (e.g., tool configuration, metadata), error handling, or dependencies. For a tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and results.

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%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Custom tool ID'. The description doesn't add meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to obtain the ID. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is provided.

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 ('Get details') and resource ('a custom tool'), which is specific and informative. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'goclaw_custom_tool_list' or 'goclaw_custom_tool_invoke', which would require mentioning it retrieves details for a specific ID rather than listing all tools or invoking one.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a custom tool ID), contrast with 'goclaw_custom_tool_list' for listing all tools, or specify use cases like retrieving metadata before invocation. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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