invoke_read_tool

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it refuses non-read-only tools, and thoroughly explains cursor semantics including process-locality, integrity protection, time-limits, binding to tool name/arguments, and error behavior for invalid cursors. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and usage guidance, followed by a structured 'Args' section that details cursor behavior. The cursor explanation is long but necessary and well-organized. Overall, it is appropriately concise without being under-specified.

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 dispatcher tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary use case, restrictions, and error behavior for cursors. It could mention how arguments should be structured or what the return format looks like, but these are somewhat incidental given the tool's nature. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The cursor parameter is explained in great detail, which is crucial for its opaque nature. However, the 'arguments' parameter is not described at all beyond the schema, and 'name' is only implied as coming from find_tool. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps for the arguments parameter.

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 it calls a read-only Aruba tool by name, which is a specific verb-resource pairing. It distinguishes itself from the sibling invoke_tool by explicitly limiting to read-only 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?

It explicitly says to use this tool for read-only tools and to use invoke_tool for write/destructive tools after explicit user intent. This provides clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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