Call Activated Tool

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

The description adds context about activation requirements but contradicts the annotations. The tool is described as calling dynamic tools, which may write or mutate data, yet annotations set readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. This is a significant inconsistency that misleads about the tool's side effects. Without the contradiction, the description would score higher for explaining the proxy mechanism.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating functionality, explaining use case, and providing workflow steps. No redundant or unnecessary text. Highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 is a proxy with no output schema, the description adequately explains the prerequisite activation and how to obtain the tool name. However, it does not address error handling (e.g., what if the target tool fails) or confirm the idempotency hinted by annotations. Slight gap but mostly complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable meaning for 'tool_name' by specifying it should come from the activation response's 'tools' list and providing an example ('nvd-search-cves'). For 'arguments', only minimal restatement. Overall, description improves understanding of parameter origin and usage.

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: 'Proxy any activated plugin tool by name.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining it is for dynamically activated tools that aren't directly callable. The verb 'proxy' and resource 'activated plugin tool' are specific.

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 explicitly says when to use: 'when dynamically activated tools aren't directly callable in your environment.' It also provides a clear two-step workflow: first activate with opendata_providers_activate, then call with tool name and arguments. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, which would improve guidance.

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