edict_invoke

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions sending a request and returning a structured result, but lacks details on error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'structured result' entails. For a tool that performs HTTP operations with potential side effects, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful context about the deployment round-trip. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs HTTP invocations with potential mutations. It doesn't explain the nature of the 'structured result,' error conditions, or safety considerations, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand tool behavior.

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 the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'optional input' and 'structured result' but not elaborating on parameter interactions or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most documentation.

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: 'Invoke a deployed Edict WASM service via HTTP' with specific verb ('invoke') and resource ('deployed Edict WASM service'). It distinguishes from siblings like edict_deploy or edict_compile by focusing on the invocation phase, but doesn't explicitly contrast with edict_invoke_skill or other invocation-related tools.

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 implies usage context with 'Completes the deploy → invoke round-trip,' suggesting it should be used after deployment. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edict_invoke_skill or edict_run, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions beyond the deployment context.

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