execute_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Execute an agent element' implies a potentially state-changing operation, but the description doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only action, what side effects occur, if authentication is needed, or how errors are handled. It lacks critical behavioral details for safe invocation.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 the complexity implied by 'execute' (suggesting a potentially stateful operation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and vague description, this is incomplete. The agent cannot reliably understand what execution entails, what results to expect, or how to handle this tool in context with siblings. More detail is needed for safe and effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'name' and 'goal'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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?

The description 'Execute an agent element with a specific goal' clearly states the action (execute) and target (agent element), but it's vague about what 'execute' entails and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'activate_element' or 'deactivate_element'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about the execution mechanism or outcome.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'activate_element', 'deactivate_element', and 'get_element_details', there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. It leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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