invoke_tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds useful context that the invoked tool's own 'kind' from find_tool determines what it changes, which helps the agent reason about side effects. However it says nothing about failure modes, auth, or what happens if the named tool is missing.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. The second sentence is a little telegraphic but still 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?

For an open-world dispatcher with no output schema, the description should say more about what a result looks like and how errors surface when the invoked tool fails. It covers the essential routing concept but leaves the call mechanics under-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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only implies that 'name' comes from find_tool and says nothing about the 'arguments' object shape, defaults, or how to pass tool-specific parameters. Passing arbitrary arguments to an arbitrary tool is exactly where guidance is needed most.

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 ('Run') and resource ('any tool from find_tool'), and the phrase 'including ones that change the network' implicitly distinguishes it from the read-only sibling invoke_read_tool. It stops short of naming that sibling directly, so differentiation is present but inferential.

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?

Implies a workflow (discover via find_tool, then run here) and hints at the read/write split, but never states when to prefer this over invoke_read_tool or excludes cases. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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