call_tool

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

Annotations supply destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is pre-declared. The description adds two behavioral constraints not in annotations: it reaches only tools registered in this session, and it refuses self-recursion. It stops short of saying what happens on an unregistered/invalid name beyond 'use enable_toolset', but that is a minor gap against an already-declared destructive profile.

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, each earning its place: identity/scope first, routing second, hard limits third. No repetition of the title or filler.

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 need no explanation) and annotations carry the safety hints. For a dispatcher of this complexity, the description covers scope, alternatives, and self-refusal — the remaining specifics live in the linked inspect_tool flow.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the pointer to find_tool/inspect_tool for the name. The description echoes rather than extends that meaning (arguments must match the target's own schema is already in the schema). Baseline 3 applies when 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?

Names a specific verb (call) and resource (any REGISTERED tool by name) and frames the tool's role as the dispatcher for a trimmed surface. It explicitly differentiates itself from siblings find_tool, inspect_tool, and enable_toolset, so an agent can place it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing: find_tool discovers a name, inspect_tool shows its schema, enable_toolset is the path for tools not registered this session. The self-exclusion ('refuses to call itself') is a concrete when-not rule. Nothing is left to inference.

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