execute_tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read-only profile. The description adds context about its role as an indirection layer and the need to use discover_tools first, but does not disclose additional behaviors like error handling or return value forwarding. Given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core function, followed by usage nuance. Every sentence provides distinct value: purpose, when to use, and comparison with alternatives. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description adequately covers the primary use case and dependency on discover_tools. However, with no output schema, it does not mention what the tool returns (likely the result of the invoked tool) or potential error conditions. This is a minor gap given the tool's generic nature and the completeness of the schema and annotations.

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%, with both parameters (tool and args) described in the schema. The description mentions the arguments object but adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies as the description neither enhances nor conflicts with schema.

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's function: 'Run any tool from the catalog by name with an arguments object.' It distinguishes itself from specialist siblings by being a generic executor, and explicitly contrasts with discover_tools. This is a specific verb + resource with clear differentiation.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use after discover_tools to reach specialist tools that are not advertised in tools/list.' It also notes that advertised tools can be called this way, but calling them directly is simpler, providing a clear alternative. This fully addresses when and why to use the tool.

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