SwarmClaw presents 41 tools with critical definition quality issues. While tool names follow verb_noun conventions (execute_command, read_file, write_file), the actual schema definitions are not visible in the provided source code. The tool-definitions.ts file is referenced but its content is not shown, preventing verification of input schemas, parameter descriptions, output structures, and error handling. Without access to the actual schema definitions, we cannot confirm the presence of required JSON Schema types, parameter descriptions, or output documentation. The sample source shows only Dockerfile, package.json, and test file references, no tool schema implementations. Tools spanning file I/O, web operations, delegation, and system management (41 total) lack demonstrable schema quality. The high-level tool list suggests broad functionality but offers no evidence of: (1) documented input parameters with type constraints and descriptions, (2) output schemas with field documentation, (3) error recovery guidance, (4) idempotency declarations, (5) permission/scope declarations. Critical tools like execute_command (WRITE), delete_file (DESTRUCTIVE), and delegate_to_agent (WRITE) have no visible schema documentation, parameter validation rules, or safety constraints. The descriptions provided ('Run shell commands in the working directory', 'Delete files or directories (when explicitly enabled)') are functional but minimal (34-53 characters), below the optimal 50-200 character range for LLM-optimized descriptions. Without seeing src/lib/tool-definitions.ts, we cannot verify whether parameters accept enums for constrained values, whether descriptions explain WHEN to use each tool vs. similar alternatives, or whether output schemas include chaining IDs needed for downstream tool calls.

• Inspect and document src/lib/tool-definitions.ts to expose actual JSON Schema definitions for all 41 tools. For each parameter, add: type (string|number|boolean|object|array), required flag, description (50-200 chars explaining WHAT, WHEN, and WHY), and constraints (enum values, min/max, regex patterns, length limits).
• Rewrite tool descriptions following the LLM-optimized format: (1) What action does it perform? (2) When should the LLM call it instead of alternatives? (3) What does it return? (4) Any prerequisites or side effects? Target 100-200 characters. Example: 'Execute shell commands in the working directory. Use for running builds, tests, or system tasks. Returns stdout, stderr, and exit code. Irreversible, LLM cannot undo. Requires shell syntax validation.'
• Consolidate 8 delegate_to_X_cli tools into a single delegate_to_agent tool with an explicit cli_provider enum parameter (claude_code|codex|opencode|gemini|copilot|droid|cursor|qwen). This reduces duplication, simplifies LLM decision-making, and follows single-responsibility principle.
• Rename generic tools: 'memory' → 'store_memory' or 'recall_memory' (split concerns), 'browser' → 'web_browser_action', 'manage_*' → 'create_task'|'update_task'|'delete_task', 'whoami_tool' → 'get_agent_context', 'connector_message_tool' → 'send_connector_message'. Verbs must come first and clearly indicate the action.
• Document output schemas for all tools. For each tool response, define: (1) root object type (object|array), (2) field names and types, (3) whether pagination is supported (include total_count, next_cursor, or limit parameters in responses). Example: execute_command returns {stdout: string, stderr: string, exit_code: number, command_truncated: boolean}.