n3fjp_call

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

With no annotations, the description does a good job disclosing key behaviors: command normalization, Needs Approval tier, and blocking destructive SQL unless a switch is set. Missing details on error handling or reply format but still strong.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured: one-line purpose, then clear details. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Covers command usage, safety, and relation to siblings. Missing details on return value structure, but since no output schema, it could be improved. Still sufficient for decision-making.

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 coverage is 0%, so description adds essential meaning. Explains that 'command' accepts multiple formats and normalizes them, and 'expect' is the response ID to wait for. Additional examples would have made it perfect.

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?

Clearly states it is an 'escape hatch' for sending raw N3FJP commands and returning parsed replies. Distinguishes itself from group tools by noting it reaches anything not surfaced by them.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (for commands not covered by group tools) and when not to (raw SQL that could wipe database requires a special switch). Provides context on command normalization and authorization tier.

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