invoke_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the addressing scheme and the discovery path. However, it says nothing about the invocation mechanics that matter here: that the payload is forwarded verbatim, that the target tool's errors/behavior are surfaced, or that this proxy can trigger destructive operations on the target. The disclosure is useful but thin for a generic dispatch tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the discovery dependency. No filler, and the most important information (exact name format) comes first.

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 dispatch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and name acquisition but omits how results come back and how target failures propagate. It is callable, but an agent lacks the runtime expectations this kind of tool warrants.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the exact-name format and payload semantics. The description's naming-format clause largely restates the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Invoke') and resource ('built-in or child tool by exact name'), and the '(serverName__toolName)' clause pins down the addressing model. It is clearly separable from its siblings: search_tools discovers names and mcp_status enumerates children, while this one executes.

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?

It routes the agent to the right prerequisite tools ('Discover names via search_tools; child roster via mcp_status'), which tells the agent what to do first. It stops short of stating exclusions or when a direct/sibling call is preferable, so it gives clear context but not full when/when-not guidance.

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