invoke_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behaviors. It only says 'Runs behind the scenes, no script needed,' but fails to mention side effects, whether it's asynchronous, return format, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool that could trigger agent 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a practical example. Every sentence contributes value and there is no verbose or redundant content.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context. It explains how to invoke the tool with parameters and gives an example, but lacks information about response format, execution model, or potential side effects, leaving gaps for an agent to operate safely.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that agent_name or agent_id can be used, and gives an example using agent_name and message. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it doesn't clarify precedence when both are provided or the message format.

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 'Chat with an agent' using a specific verb and resource, and provides an example ('ask TimeWeatherAgent what the exchange rate is CAD/USD') that illustrates the tool's purpose. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'execute_tool' or agent management functions.

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 a concrete usage example and clarifies how to use agent_name vs. agent_id, giving clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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