invoke_planned_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Execute a planned tool' but does not disclose potential side effects, return values, permission requirements, or whether this is a safe read-only operation. Executing a tool could have arbitrary consequences, and that is not addressed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. It says exactly what is needed and nothing more, making it highly 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?

For a tool that executes other tools, the description is minimal. It lacks information about what the execution returns, whether there are side effects, or any caveats. Given there is no output schema or annotations, the description leaves the agent without a full picture. The basic purpose is clear, but the operational context is incomplete.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds valuable context by explicitly stating that the toolId comes from plan_capabilities_for_goal, linking the parameter to another tool's output. It also clarifies that args are to pass to the planned tool, which is helpful beyond 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 uses the specific verb 'Execute' and identifies the resource as 'a planned tool returned by plan_capabilities_for_goal', clearly distinguishing it from the planning sibling tool (plan_capabilities_for_goal). It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 implicitly states when to use the tool: after plan_capabilities_for_goal has returned a planned tool. This provides a clear usage context and ties the tool to a specific prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it is just short of a 5.

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