hydra_call_tool

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, error handling, or whether the call is destructive. The agent gets no context beyond the basic action.

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 wasted words. However, it could benefit from structuring to highlight parameters or usage scenarios more clearly.

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 the tool's complexity (calling a mounted capability), the description is minimal. No output schema exists, and it doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or typical use cases. Schema coverage is high, but completeness suffers from lack of behavioral details.

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 the description adds value by clarifying that tool_name can be a canonical id, namespaced name, or original tool name—expanding on the schema's 'Capability id/name or original Hydra tool name'. The arguments parameter remains generic but is adequately described.

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 action (call), the resource (mounted Hydra capability), and three identification methods (canonical id, namespaced name, original tool name). This specificity distinguishes it from siblings like hydra_mount or hydra_execute.

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 explains how to identify the capability but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hydra_execute or hydra_probe. No explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings.

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