execute_tool

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

The annotations already indicate 'readOnlyHint: true', 'idempotentHint: true', and 'destructiveHint: false', effectively signaling safe behavior. The description adds the behavioral trait that this tool proxies execution of discovered tools, which is valuable context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., that the proxied tool may have its own behaviors not covered here) or any auth or rate limit concerns. Since annotations handle the safety profile well, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 brief and front-loaded with the domain prefix and key action. It uses two logical parts: an identifier and a functional explanation. Every word contributes to clarity, though the inclusion of '— [메타]' adds a meta label that could be omitted without reducing value. Overall, it is concise and well-structured, earning a 4.

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 simplicity (2 required parameters, 100% schema coverage, output schema absent) and the richness of annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. Without an output schema, a description of return values would be helpful but is not strictly necessary since this is a proxy tool—the output depends on the proxied tool. The description is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could note that return structure matches the proxied tool's output. Score of 4.

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 has 100% description coverage, with each parameter ('tool_name' and 'params') already having descriptions. The description adds the phrase 'discover_tools로 확인한 이름' (name confirmed via discover_tools) for tool_name, which clarifies the source of valid names but does not add new semantics beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly raise or lower it.

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 includes 'Korean-law-mcp' as a prefix to convey the domain context and states it is a proxy executor for tools discovered via 'discover_tools'. The verb '실행' (execute) and the parameters 'tool_name + params' clearly indicate what the tool does. However, it mentions a '메타' (meta) nature without elaborating, and the description does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools, earning a score of 4.

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 implies that this tool is used to run discovered tools, suggesting a prerequisite of calling 'discover_tools' first. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'search_law' or 'get_law_text', and no mention of when not to use it. The usage context is implicit rather than explicitly stated, warranting a score of 3.

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