call_registry_tool

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't introduce contradictions. It adds a caution to inspect parameters via describe_registry_tool, which is useful, but doesn't elaborate on specific side effects, error handling, or scope of destructive actions beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core action with an example, the second gives a mandatory prerequisite step. No fluff, information is front-loaded and directly useful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. The description covers the tool's purpose, parameter format, and a key workflow step (describe first). It doesn't discuss edge cases or error behavior, but given it's a generic dispatcher and annotations cover safety, it's sufficiently complete for the agent.

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 schema has no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), so the description carries the burden. It provides a concrete example mapping 'name' to a tool name and 'params' to an object with key-value pairs, clarifying both parameters effectively despite their generic nature.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Ejecuta una tool del catálogo por nombre' (executes a tool from the catalog by name). It gives a concrete example with 'object.create' and params, which distinguishes it from siblings like describe_registry_tool (describes) and list_registry_tools (lists).

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 explicitly advises using describe_registry_tool first to know the exact parameters, providing a clear alternative and context for when this tool is appropriate. It doesn't cover exclusions or all alternatives, 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.