call_routed_tool

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint: false, implying mutability. The description adds no behavioral context beyond executing a tool—fails to disclose risks, potential side effects from arbitrary tool calls, or that it can invoke destructive actions.

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 concise and uses a structured docstring format (Args, Returns). It is front-loaded with the main purpose. The Returns section adds minor redundancy but is useful given no output schema.

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?

The description covers the basic mechanics but omits important context: that it can call any registered tool (a meta-tool), the need for proper tool registration, and potential security concerns. The mention of return type is vague but acceptable.

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 clear meaning to both parameters beyond the schema: 'tool_name' as the registered tool to call, and 'arguments' as an optional dictionary. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates effectively.

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's purpose: 'Dynamically execute a routed tool by name with arguments.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a meta-tool for dynamic invocation, while siblings are specific Sophos tools.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., direct tool calls or the 'route_tools' sibling). The description lacks context on prerequisites, security implications, or when not to use it.

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