call_engine

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (POST), endpoint pattern, return format (uniform envelope), and that failed calls cost no credits. It does not mention idempotency or error codes, but overall is transparent.

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?

Four sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose/method, prerequisite, authentication, return format and cost. Front-loaded and free of redundancy.

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 API caller with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, method, endpoint, return format, prerequisite, auth, and cost. It is quite complete, though a brief example response would improve it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'engine' and 'action' are path components and 'params' is the body, and instructs to get param names from get_engine_schema. It adds context but does not list individual parameter details.

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 a ReefAPI engine action using HTTP POST. It specifies the verb 'Call' and the resource 'engine action', and the sibling tools (get_engine_schema, get_action_schema, etc.) are clearly for schema retrieval, making this tool distinct.

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 advises 'Get param names from get_engine_schema first' as a prerequisite, and explains authentication requirements. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear and it provides actionable guidance.

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