APIClaw

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: automatic provider selection, fallback handling, and cost/speed optimization. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or what happens when capabilities are unavailable. The description adds value but leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first explains the core concept and key behaviors, the second provides a concrete example. Every element earns its place, with no redundant information. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the most important information.

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 complex tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains the capability-based approach and key behaviors but lacks details about return values, error handling, and specific usage scenarios. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of structured metadata, more comprehensive guidance would be beneficial.

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%, providing detailed documentation for all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reinforcing that parameters should be 'capability-standard' rather than provider-specific. This meets the baseline 3 for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter usage or relationships.

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 executes actions by capability rather than provider, with specific examples like sending SMS. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on capability-based execution rather than direct API calls or administrative functions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific sibling tools like 'call_api'.

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 implies usage context by stating APIClaw automatically selects providers and handles fallback, suggesting this is for capability-based operations rather than provider-specific ones. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'call_api' or 'list_capabilities', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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