invoke_tool

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

The description adds context beyond the annotations by warning that the tool can call read or write operations and advising to check target tool details. This aligns with the destructiveHint annotation and provides useful caution.

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?

Two highly informative sentences with no wasted words; the first conveys purpose and the second adds critical safety guidance, making it concise and well-structured.

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 nature (a meta-tool that invokes others), the description is fully complete: it explains what it does, how to use it, and safety considerations. The presence of an output schema also reduces the need to describe return values.

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%, so the description adds minimal value. It restates parameter names and provides a minor usage note ('Use {} when the target tool accepts no parameters'), which is sufficient but not exceptional.

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 action ('Invokes') and resource ('proxy-visible Huly tool'), and it is distinct from sibling tools which are about getting context, schemas, versions, categories, or searching.

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 explicit context ('check get_tool_schema and the target tool annotations when safety matters') but does not specify when not to use or provide alternatives, which is acceptable given that this is a meta-tool.

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