call_tool

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or error handling. The word 'execute' implies action, but details are lacking for a tool that runs a tool on a server.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and 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?

Given the tool executes actions on a server, the description lacks essential details like return values, error behavior, and what 'proxied' means. No output schema exists, and parameters are not fully documented, leaving agents with insufficient context for correct usage.

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?

Only 33% of parameters (args) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal value by explaining that args are tool arguments and referencing read_tool for required fields, but server and tool parameters have no descriptions, leaving their purpose partially inferred.

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 action ('Execute a tool on a proxied MCP server'), identifying the verb-resource relationship. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tools (lists tools) and read_tool (reads tool details).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as read_tool for inspecting a tool before execution. The description does not provide any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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