tool_call

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that credentials are auto-injected from the vault and that auth headers must not be included, but omits further details like idempotency, error handling, rate limits, or whether the tool is destructive. This is insufficient for a tool that performs external HTTP calls.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second covers critical behavioral constraints. Every sentence provides essential information.

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 complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the execution flow, return format, error states, or how the tool interacts with external services. A user would need additional documentation to use it correctly.

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, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning; it only reinforces the 'extra_headers' restriction. The schema already documents each parameter adequately.

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 action ('Execute a registered tool by its slug'), specifying the identifier method and distinguishing it from sibling tools like skill_execute which operate on skills. The verb 'execute' and resource 'registered tool' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides critical constraints about credentials and auth headers but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., skill_execute, toolkits). It does not explain prerequisites, such as requiring the tool to be registered, or when to avoid using this tool.

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