clm_invoke

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

Beyond the minimal annotations, the description discloses two meaningful behaviors: params are validated against the operation's resolved schema before the HTTP call, and *Command writes are refused when CLM_ENABLE_WRITES=false. This gives the agent important runtime expectations, though it does not cover error output or side-effect details.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by two high-value behavioral notes. There is no fluff or repetition; every sentence adds necessary context.

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?

The description covers the main operational needs: where operations come from, how params are validated, and the write-refusal condition. It does not mention how to retrieve the resolved schema or what the response format looks like, but for a generic invocation tool these are reasonable gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: operation must be an operation listed by clm_list_operations, and params is a payload validated against that operation's resolved schema. It does not enumerate dynamic fields, which is appropriate for a generic dispatcher.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it executes any operation exposed through clm_list_operations, establishing this as a generic dispatcher. It stops short of a 5 because it does not contrast itself with the many dedicated sibling command tools in the list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose clm_invoke over the many dedicated sibling operation tools. The description says 'any operation' but does not mention preferring specific tools or using this only for operations not already exposed as dedicated functions.

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