callAgent

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. Mentions proxying and two interaction types, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or failure modes. Minimal transparency beyond basic function.

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?

Three sentences, no redundancy. Front-loaded with core purpose, then tucks in interaction modes and a naming tip. Every sentence earns its place; no 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?

Given 7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. Missing parameter details, return value description, prerequisites, and error conditions. Incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%; description must compensate. Only hints at parameter usage via 'server:agentId format' (likely for targetAgentId). No explanation of messages structure, interactionType differences, serverUrl, etc. Leaves most parameters unexplained.

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?

Clear verb and resource: 'proxies requests to a target agent'. Distinguishes from sibling tools (connect, describe, disconnect, list) by focusing on interaction. Adds specificity with 'generate and stream interactions' and naming convention for multi-server environments.

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?

Implied usage: call an agent when you need to send messages. Sibling tool names make alternatives obvious. Provides a practical guideline for multi-server naming. Lacks explicit when/not or exclusions, but context is adequate.

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