call_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does state that 'The result is exactly what the underlying tool returns,' which clarifies return behavior. However, it does not mention that execution may have side effects, require permissions, or that errors depend on the underlying tool. Given this is a generic executor capable of invoking destructive operations, the lack of safety warnings is a significant gap.

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 with no wasted words. Each sentence carries necessary information: the action and the parameter-passing convention, plus the return behavior. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple generic dispatcher but has gaps. It explains that the result is exactly the underlying tool's return, which is important in the absence of an output schema. However, it does not mention that `name` should come from `list_tools` (only the schema does), nor does it warn about potential side effects. Given the high schema coverage, a bit more context about tool discovery and safety would make it complete.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, yielding 100% coverage, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds minimal semantic value by saying 'Pass its parameters in `args` (object),' but this duplicates the schema. It does not clarify aliases or the accepted JSON string form, which are already in the 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: 'Execute a tool from the catalog by name.' This uses a specific verb ('execute') and resource ('tool from the catalog'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform domain-specific actions. The phrase 'by name' clarifies the mechanism.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus direct sibling tools. It does not mention that specific tool functions should be preferred when available, nor does it set conditions for using this generic dispatcher. The only implied context is that it executes tools by name, but no alternatives or exclusions are given.

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