capability_call

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

Annotations already disclose the risky profile (destructive, openWorld, non-idempotent, not read-only), so the safety burden is largely covered. The description adds that this is a fallback path, but omits critical behavior for a dispatcher: what happens when 'tool' is unknown, whether args are forwarded verbatim, and whether the call is proxied elsewhere.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though brevity here borders on under-specification rather than tight editing.

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?

For a generic dispatcher that can invoke arbitrary capabilities with arbitrary arguments, the description is thin: no guidance on valid tool identifiers, argument-passing contract, error behavior for missing capabilities, or reference to capability_list for discovery. With no output schema and 0% param coverage, the description should carry far more.

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% and there are two parameters, including a nested 'args' object with no documented shape. The description says nothing about what 'tool' should contain (a capability name) or how 'args' must be structured to match the target capability's schema, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 phrase 'fallback dispatcher' conveys a generic act of routing, and the qualifier 'capability present on the live server but missing from a cached client catalog' is really a usage condition rather than a statement of what the tool does. An agent can infer it invokes a named capability, but the verb is vague and the resource is abstract.

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 trigger condition (a capability is on the live server but absent from the cached catalog), which is a real usage cue. However, it never names the natural partner tool (capability_list) for discovering capabilities, nor does it state when this fallback should NOT be used versus a normal direct call.

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