call_routed_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says 'invoke a tool' without mentioning potential side effects of the dynamically called tool, error handling for invalid names or arguments, or that arguments must be passed as a JSON string. This lack of detail is concerning for a tool that could trigger arbitrary operations.

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 extremely concise, using only two sentences and a short argument list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place without unnecessary fluff.

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?

As a dynamic tool invoker, the description is thin. It does not explain how to use the tool in conjunction with route_tools, what happens on failure, or that it may execute destructive operations depending on the routed tool. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for these missing behavioral details.

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 description adds some meaning by stating the name must be 'Exact tool name from route_tools output' and that arguments is a 'JSON object.' However, it contradicts the schema which declares arguments as a string, leaving ambiguity about the expected format. Despite 0% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates for this gap.

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 'Invoke a tool returned by route_tools,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling domain-specific tools like get_athlete_profile or list_activities, making its role as a meta-tool obvious.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for invoking tools returned by route_tools, providing a clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative approaches, though the context is self-sufficient.

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