guardentry_invoke_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: write actions are queued for dashboard approval, meaning results may not be immediately applied. It also states the agent returns results, which sets expectations. It doesn't cover authentication or rate limits, but the queuing and execution behavior are sufficiently disclosed.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every phrase adds value: invocation method, execution behavior, and write-action queuing. No fluff or repetition.

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 with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does, how parameters relate, and a critical side effect (queued writes). It doesn't specify the output format, but 'returns results' is adequate given the schema. It could mention that action_status can track queued operations, but the current level is sufficient for a non-trivial invocation tool.

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%, and each parameter has a clear description (agent_id as UUID, agent_type as fallback). The description only mirrors 'by ID or type' without adding new parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents parameters well.

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 invokes a GuardEntry agent by ID or type, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like invoke_skill (which runs a skill instead of an agent) and list_* tools by focusing on execution. The added detail about configured skills (vulnerability scanning, compliance, risk) reinforces scope.

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 usage context: 'The agent executes its configured skills' suggests that if you want to run a specific skill, you might use invoke_skill instead. It also notes that write actions are queued for approval, indicating this tool is for triggering agent runs, not for direct mutations. However, no explicit exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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