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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that the call is asynchronous relayed to a polling executor, but it omits how the caller retrieves results (e.g. pcc_get_tool_result) or what happens on failure, which matters for a relay tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by two short clarifying sentences. The final sentence about the brain/executor split is slightly redundant given the second sentence already conveys it, but the text is tight overall.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description never tells the agent how the relayed call's result comes back or that a separate retrieval step is needed. For an async relay in a large tool surface, that is a meaningful gap even though the core mechanics are explained.

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%, so kernelId, toolName, toolArgs and scopeId are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Relay a tool call to a device executor,' which is concrete and actionable. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling pcc_relay_generic_tool_call, so an agent cannot tell which relay to pick without guessing.

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 explains the architectural context (brain posts, executor polls and runs locally), which implies when the tool is relevant, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name the alternative relay tool.

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