execute_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic behavior (executes a named tool with parameters), but does not disclose that executing arbitrary tools may have side effects, require permissions, or fail. No details are given about error handling, output, or consequential actions, leaving the agent without critical safety context.

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 two sentences: the first precisely states the tool's function, the second provides essential workflow guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 covers the essential use case—execute a named tool with params—and mentions the need to discover tools via search_tools. However, it omits guidance on using get_tool_schema to validate parameters, what happens on invalid tool names or schemas, and whether execution results are returned. Given the tool's role as a generic dispatcher, these are meaningful gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters meaningfully. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond reinforcing that parameters are passed to the named tool. According to the baseline for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate.

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 states a specific verb ('execute'), a resource ('a specific tool by name'), and the action taken with params. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by instructing the agent to use search_tools first for discovery, positioning execute_tool as the execution step in the workflow.

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 explicitly directs the agent to use search_tools first, establishing a clear precondition and workflow. It does not explicitly mention get_tool_schema or state when not to use execute_tool, but the 'search first' guidance provides clear context for the intended usage sequence.

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