embrace_call_readonly

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that it accepts arbitrary JSON arguments and returns the complete JSON-RPC result, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention any side effects, error behaviors, or confirm that it only calls read-only tools (implied by the name). This is a moderate transparency gap given the lack of annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and both sentences earn their place. The structure is clean and efficient, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

While the output schema likely covers return values, the description omits the apparently important fact that this tool is restricted to read-only operations (suggested by the name and sibling). It also doesn't mention error handling or prerequisites beyond discovering arguments. For a generic dispatcher, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains the 'arguments' parameter well (arbitrary JSON) but does not elaborate on 'tool_name' beyond what the schema already shows. The description partially compensates but not fully, especially since tool_name is required and its purpose is only implied.

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 calls one published Embrace tool and returns the JSON-RPC result. It distinguishes itself from the sibling by emphasizing it's a dispatcher, not a listing tool. A slightly higher score is withheld because it doesn't explicitly contrast with embrace_list_readonly_tools in terms of purpose, but the intent is unmistakable.

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 gives explicit guidance: use embrace_list_readonly_tools first when arguments are unknown. It also explains why arbitrary arguments are accepted (schemas evolve independently), which informs when this tool is the right choice. This is clear and actionable usage direction.

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