adm_api_raw

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire burden. It only states it calls an endpoint, not whether it is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication. The phrase 'raw' hints at power but does not disclose behavioral traits.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary action. While very concise, it serves its purpose without wasted words.

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 no output schema and lacking annotations, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain return values, available actions, or error handling, leaving the agent underinformed for effective use.

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% (both parameters have descriptions in schema). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'Call a raw adm.tools action endpoint', specifying the verb (Call) and resource (raw action endpoint). The phrase 'Advanced use only' and sibling names (adm_get_services, etc.) indicate it's a generic alternative to specific actions, distinguishing it well.

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 for advanced scenarios not covered by sibling tools via 'Advanced use only', but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor provides exclusions or conditions.

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