run_tool

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no insight into potential side effects, read-only guarantees, or whether the tool mutates state. Since it can invoke any tool, side effects are unknown, risking unintended writes.

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 two sentences, directly to the point, with no redundant information or filler.

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?

It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but does not describe the return value or output format. Since it's a generic launcher, it might be expected to return the called tool's result, but that is not stated. Acceptable but incomplete.

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 schema descriptions are clear: name is a tool name from list_available_tools, arguments match that tool's inputSchema. This adds helpful context beyond basic types, though it could mention required vs optional fields.

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 runs any VectorSmith tool by name with arguments, which is specific and distinguishes it from the invoice-specific sibling 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?

Explicitly says to use this for tools added to tools.yaml after Claude connected, and notes that Desktop won't show those names, giving clear when-to-use guidance versus alternatives.

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