use_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behavior: it can invoke tools not in the current list and automatically loads the relevant toolset. However, it does not explain what happens on tool errors, whether the underlying tool's side effects apply, or how results are returned.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the triggering condition, then the describe flag. No wasted text.

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 a meta-invocation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: arbitrary tool invocation, automatic toolset loading, and parameter discovery via describe=true. Minor gaps remain around error/return behavior, but the critical calling guidance is present.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds useful context for describe=true ('to see a tool's parameters first'), but otherwise the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a precise verb and resource: call any tool by name, including tools not yet listed. This clearly separates it from tools like search_tools (discovery) and load_toolset (loading), since use_tool is explicitly the invocation path.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use this when load_toolset says the client may not show new tools, and set describe=true to inspect parameters first. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name search_tools as an alternative, but the triggering condition is clear.

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