Call capability

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

The description provides significant behavioral transparency by stating that it goes through the same authorization, ACL, HITL, idempotency, and rate-limit pipeline as direct tool calls. This goes beyond the minimal annotation (openWorldHint: false) and alerts users to safety gates.

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 two sentences, concise and free of fluff. It delivers the core functionality and safety context without unnecessary detail.

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 simplicity and absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It explains what the tool does and the safety implications, though it does not specify return formats or error handling. This is acceptable for the scope.

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 has no per-parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the tool description gives only a generic explanation: 'by name with its arguments.' It clarifies that 'name' is the capability name and 'args' are the arguments, but does not detail the structure of 'args' beyond referencing the target's schema.

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 capability by name with its arguments.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like describe_capability and find_capability, which focus on inspection rather than execution.

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 mentions routing into a safety pipeline but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings. The name implies invocation, but the text lacks direct usage guidance or conditions.

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