frappe_run_method

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'whitelisted' but does not disclose what happens if a non-whitelisted method is called, side effects, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool that can execute arbitrary code, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence (17 words) that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word contributes value, making it highly efficient.

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's complexity (executing server-side methods with potential side effects) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not mention return values, error handling, or prerequisites, leaving the agent underinformed for safe invocation.

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 100% and both parameters are described in the schema. The description adds a usage example and the 'whitelisted' context but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 explicitly states the action (call), resource (whitelisted server-side Python method on Frappe site), and provides a concrete example (frappe.auth.get_logged_user). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on document CRUD or ping, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for executing arbitrary whitelisted methods, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the document-focused siblings or provide exclusions. The context is clear but the guidance is implicit, not directive.

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