websex_execute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that it's executable-backed (implies running external binaries), that it relates to engagement artifacts, and that it's a fallback. It doesn't mention security/permission concerns, but for a dispatch tool this is adequate. The advice 'Use relative paths for engagement artifacts' adds practical context.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and parameter, followed by usage guidance and a path tip. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, usage, and key param hints, which is sufficient for a dispatch tool. It could mention that 'arguments' are passed to the underlying executable, but overall it's complete enough.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'tool' parameter ('exact websex_* name returned by websex_catalog') and gives guidance for 'working_directory' ('Use relative paths for engagement artifacts'). It does not explain 'stdin', 'arguments', or 'engagement_id', but it adds significant meaning for key params.

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+resource: 'Dispatch one executable-backed catalog entry by its exact websex_* name returned by websex_catalog.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the direct named tools (the siblings) by explaining its role as a compact-mode fallback. An agent can immediately see this is a meta-invocation tool.

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 states when to use it: 'This is primarily a compact-mode fallback; in full mode prefer the direct named tool.' This provides a clear condition for use vs. the direct tools. No explicit when-not or alternative for all cases, but the guidance is actionable.

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