aai:exec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Execute' without disclosing whether the action is destructive, requires authentication, or has rate limits. Critical behavioral context is missing.

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: one for purpose, one for prerequisite. No fluff, every word earns its place.

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 generic nature and lack of output schema, the description is too terse. It does not explain the output format, error handling, or how to interpret the guide's content. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional information.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by referencing that the 'args' schema comes from a separate guide, which is crucial for understanding how to construct arguments. Without this, the agent wouldn't know that the schema here is generic.

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 'Execute any AAI tool action' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like disableApp or skill:import by being the generic entry point.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to 'Read the guide first' and lists the specific calls (app:*, mcp:import, etc.) that contain the required schema. This provides a clear prerequisite, though it does not explicitly exclude use cases.

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