call_gateway_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that calling an arbitrary gateway tool may have side effects, require authorization, or produce errors. The description is minimal and only explains the source of the name parameter, leaving the agent unaware of the potentially operationally impactful behavior of invoking an arbitrary 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and immediately provides the critical constraint on the 'name' parameter. Every word adds value.

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?

The tool is a generic gateway invoker, and the description covers the main idea, names the discovery tools, and clarifies the arguments parameter. However, it omits any mention of 'max_chars' and does not warn that the underlying tool's behavior may be unknown or potentially destructive. Given the output schema exists, return value explanation is unnecessary, but the description still leaves important contextual gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'name' (must come from search/describe) and 'arguments' (real parameter dictionary of the tool), but does not explain 'max_chars' at all. The partial coverage of 2 out of 3 parameters brings the score above baseline but leaves a significant gap.

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 purpose: to call a real tool under the gateway. It uses a specific verb ('call') and resource ('a real tool under gateway'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_gateway_tools and describe_gateway_tool by indicating it performs the actual invocation rather than discovery.

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 usage guidance by stating that the 'name' parameter comes from search_gateway_tools or describe_gateway_tool, implying the correct workflow: first discover, then invoke. It does not explicitly state 'when not to use' but the reference to sibling tools makes the alternative path clear.

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