invoke

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility. It fails to disclose that invoking arbitrary MCP tools could have side effects (destructive or otherwise), and it doesn't explain the 'compact projection surface' or what happens on invocation. The validate mode is a positive safety hint, but overall behavioral risk is understated.

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 short but structurally flawed by the incomplete 'Available tool families:' line. It uses jargon like 'compact projection surface' without elaboration. The flow is disjointed, moving from invocation to identifiers to an example, making it less coherent than it could be.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not clarify how the output relates to the invoked tool (e.g., passthrough vs. wrap), nor does it explain the 'compact projection surface' or enumerate available tool families. The missing list of tool families is a major completeness gap for a proxy 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?

Since schema coverage is 0%, the description adds meaning for `ref` (server/name) and `mode` (validate for inspection). The `arguments` parameter is only exemplified, not fully explained. This is helpful but incomplete for a generic tool with three parameters.

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 invokes an MCP tool ('Invoke an MCP tool through the compact projection surface') and provides a concrete example (invoke with notes/echo_note). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'read', and the dangling 'Available tool families:' line introduces ambiguity.

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?

Provides specific guidance on constructing the ref object ('Use `ref.server` and `ref.name`') and using validate mode ('Use `mode="validate"` to inspect input requirements'). It does not explain when to use this tool versus the 'read' sibling, and the incomplete list of tool families offers no exclusionary guidance.

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