Call a tool on a server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not mention any side effects, permissions, rate limits, error behaviors, or whether the call is read-only or mutating. It only states the requirement for arguments to match the schema, which is more of a usage instruction than a 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 one short sentence that gets to the point immediately, plus a second sentence with a crucial usage hint. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, with 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 the simplicity of the tool (with a clear connection to get_tool_schema) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks detail on error handling, return value format (no output schema), and potential side effects, which could be important for an execution tool.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value by pointing to get_tool_schema for argument matching, but it does not elaborate on the parameters' semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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's purpose: to call a tool on an MCP server. It names the primary action (call) and the resource (tool on a server), and it differentiates itself from siblings by implying it executes rather than lists or manages servers/tools.

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 a clear prerequisite: arguments must match the schema from get_tool_schema. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it or suggest any alternative for related operations.

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