call_dashscope_mcp

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

No annotations are provided. The description only says it calls a remote service and gets results, without disclosing potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or dependence on the called tool's 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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with purpose. It efficiently uses two sentences plus arg list. No wasted words.

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 it is a meta-tool calling other tools, the description lacks context about available tools, error handling, output details (though output schema exists), and prerequisites. Sibling tools are many specific ones, but no cross-reference provided.

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%. The description adds minimal meaning: 'tool_name' is the tool name, 'arguments' is the dict to pass. It does not clarify the source of valid tool names or constraints on arguments.

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 that the tool calls a remote MCP service and gets results, with arguments tool_name and arguments. It is a generic caller, distinct from the specific sibling tools, but does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the specific sibling tools (e.g., create_prompt, delete_prompt). The description merely explains what it does, not when to use it.

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