lm_mcp_call

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two valuable facts beyond that: outputs must be treated as untrusted data, and a fresh schema discovery is a precondition. It still omits auth requirements and failure behavior.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the prerequisite and the output-trust caveat front-loaded.

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?

For a destructive, open-world proxy call with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the definition covers the trust and authorization story but leaves the parameter contract and error/return behavior to inference.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it does not. 'name' is presumably the MCP server and 'tool' the target tool, but the description never says so, and the free-form 'arguments' object is left entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (Invoke) and resource (one tool on a configured MCP), and adds two qualifying conditions that narrow the action. It is distinguishable from siblings like lm_mcp_probe and lm_mcp_config, though it never names them explicitly.

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 phrases 'explicitly authorized' and 'after fresh schema discovery' imply prerequisites and sequencing, which is real guidance. However, it never states when to use this versus lm_mcp_probe or lm_mcp_config, nor any exclusions.

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