yaaif_local_tool_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that high-impact tools require allow_mutating=true, which is a meaningful safety/authorization note. But it does not describe side effects, return format, error behavior, or the effect of other parameters (e.g., branch, agent_id). For a dispatcher tool, this is a moderate gap; it adds some context but not rich behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then adding examples and a safety note. There is no filler or repetition. It could be slightly more informative, but it is efficient and well-structured.

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 generic dispatcher with no output schema and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It does not explain how to pass arguments, what the return value is, or that a local tool list (e.g., yaaif_local_tools_list) exists to discover valid names. It also omits guidance on when to set branch, agent_id, or resolve_workspace. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional context.

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 0% and the description explains almost none of the 7 parameters. It only hints at allow_mutating in the context of high-impact tools, but does not clarify the purpose of name, arguments, branch, agent_id, session_id, or resolve_workspace. An agent cannot infer how to construct the arguments object or what each field means from this description.

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 invokes a built-in local tool (not external MCP), which distinguishes it from the many yaaif_mcp_* siblings. It lists concrete example tool names (skill_validate_module, skill_develop, files_list, list_ambient_workflows) that an agent can immediately associate with. This is a specific verb+resource pairing that resolves ambiguity.

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 explicitly says 'Prefer for' a set of tools, giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also discloses that high-impact tools require allow_mutating=true, which is a usage condition. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for MCP tools) or name alternatives like yaaif_local_tools_list, so exclusion guidance is incomplete.

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