goclaw_custom_tool_invoke

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 but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, whether it has side effects, what happens on errors, or what the typical response looks like. 'Invoke' suggests execution but gives no insight into the nature or consequences of that execution.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, which is efficient. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of meaningful information - it's under-specified rather than optimally concise. The single sentence structure is clear but lacks the necessary content to be truly helpful.

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 executes arbitrary custom functionality with no annotations and no output schema, this description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'custom tools' are in this system, what they can do, how to discover available tools, what authentication they require, or what format results return. The agent has insufficient information to use this tool safely or effectively.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'arguments' but doesn't clarify what types of custom tools accept what argument structures, or provide examples of valid IDs or argument patterns.

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 'Invoke a custom tool directly with arguments' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'goclaw_custom_tool_invoke'. It doesn't specify what 'custom tool' means in this context, what types of tools can be invoked, or what 'invoke' entails. While it mentions 'with arguments', this adds minimal value beyond the name itself.

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. There are multiple sibling tools for managing custom tools (create, delete, get, list, update), but the description doesn't explain when direct invocation is appropriate versus using those management tools. No prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases are mentioned.

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