execute_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions 'inputs and optional config overrides' but does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior, permissions, or whether execution is synchronous or asynchronous. This is a significant gap for a generic execution tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the basic action and the two key parameters.

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 complexity of the tool (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too thin. It does not explain what toolType refers to, where to find valid types, what inputs/config overrides mean in practice, or what the tool returns. Sibling tools provide some context but do not compensate for the missing critical usage 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states; it merely rephrases 'inputs' and 'config' without explaining how they relate to toolType or what values are expected.

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') and the resource ('a tool by type'), which conveys the core purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like run_workflow or the specific tool_* executors, so it misses the explicit distinction that would earn a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not say whether to use this generic dispatcher instead of calling a specific tool_* function directly, nor does it mention list_tools as a way to discover valid toolType values.

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