skillgild_call_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real value: input is handled only by SkillGild code, never an AI provider, is not stored, and every call including invalid input consumes a tool-call quota. It still omits failure semantics beyond quota (timeouts, expired session, whether the underlying tool's side effects occur).

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 with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the privacy and quota facts follow in order of importance. Nothing could be removed without losing disclosed behavior.

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 generic dispatcher with a nested input object, the definition covers privacy, storage, and quota cost, which are the non-obvious parts. It is slightly incomplete in not saying what the call returns (there is no output schema) or how an expired session or an invalid tool name surfaces to the caller.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three required parameters (session_id, tool, input) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: call a server tool within an open SkillGild session. It is distinguishable from lifecycle siblings (start/end session) and from skillgild_run_skill by its focus on invoking a tool listed by the session, though that contrast is only implied rather than stated.

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 phrase 'in an open SkillGild session' implies the prerequisite that a session must already exist, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no comparison to skillgild_run_skill, which an agent may reasonably confuse it with. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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