cuba_call

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the call routes through the same dispatcher as a direct call so behaviour is identical, which is real behavioral context. However, it says nothing about error behaviour for unknown tool names or side-effect/auth implications, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the discovery path and the behavioral guarantee. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 dispatcher with a fully-described 2-param schema and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and how to find arguments. It is nearly complete, though it omits error handling for invalid tool names or malformed args.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds only a pointer (use cuba_tools detail='full' for exact arguments) rather than richer semantics for 'args' or 'tool'.

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 action (invoke any tool by name) with an explicit scope (including tools not pre-loaded in this session), which cleanly differentiates it from the concrete sibling tools. An agent immediately understands this is a generic dispatcher.

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?

Explicitly names the discovery alternative (cuba_tools) and the exact condition/setting (detail='full' to see the precise arguments). This is direct when-to-use guidance with a named sibling.

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