call_canister

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It fails to mention that update calls can cause side effects, consume cycles, or require authentication. It also doesn't explain consequences of incorrect type specification or error handling, which is critical for a tool that can invoke arbitrary methods.

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 that immediately convey purpose and the key concept of Candid type strings. No filler or unnecessary repetition.

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 tool's ability to call any method, it needs to explain the distinction between query and update calls, potential side effects, and how to format arguments/return types. The description lacks these details, and with no output schema, the agent is left without guidance on response handling or error scenarios.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds the key insight that argument and return types are specified using Candid type strings, which clarifies the purpose of arg_types and ret_types. However, it does not elaborate on how to structure args or handle complex types, so it provides only marginal added value.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Call' and resource 'any public method on an ICP canister', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific canister operations. The scope is well-defined and immediately understandable.

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 provides clear context: this is for calling any public method on a canister, which implies a general-purpose tool. It does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternatives, but the intended use is evident from the phrasing.

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