Chappie exhibits significant definition quality gaps. While 11 of 12 tools have descriptions (92%), most are verbose and lack actionable structure. Parameter descriptions are sparse: 'read', 'bash', 'edit', 'write', and 'transfer' lack ANY parameter descriptions beyond sessionId. Input schemas are present but minimal, most tools expose only sessionId with no type constraints, enums, or validation guidance. Tool names are action-oriented (init, chat, ask, call) but several lack clarity on scope and side effects. Error handling is not visible in the provided code. Output schemas are documented for some tools (init, chat, ask) but missing for others (read, bash, edit, write, transfer). The 'bash' tool is particularly concerning: it accepts no visible parameters beyond sessionId, making it impossible for an LLM to specify which command to run.

• Add explicit parameter descriptions to read, bash, edit, write, transfer. E.g., bash: 'command (string): Bash command to execute in the current working directory. Must not contain shell metacharacters without escaping.'
• Document bash input schema with a 'command' parameter (string, required). Currently the tool is unusable, LLM has no way to specify what to run.
• Add output schemas for all file operation tools (read, edit, write, transfer). Specify return fields: success (boolean), output (string), error (string), fileSize (number).
• Expand answer tool schema: document the structure of the 'answer' object. Is it {text: string}? {selected: string[]}? {skipped: boolean}? Make it explicit.
• Add error handling guidance to tool descriptions. E.g., 'If bash returns exit code 127, the command was not found. Suggest alternatives or ask the user to verify the command.'