m3_call

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

Given no annotations, description discloses key behaviors: low-token approach, batch fault isolation, dry_run validation, destructive gate requirement, and JSON return. Missing error handling details, but sufficient for a generic invocation tool.

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?

Single paragraph with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words. Perfectly concise for the complexity.

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?

Covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage modes, parameter roles, error isolation, validation, requirements. Could elaborate on return format for batch vs single, but overall complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, but description thoroughly explains all parameters: tool string, args object, batch list, dry_run boolean, timeout default, database string. Compensates fully for lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it invokes any m3 catalog tool by name, distinguishing itself as a low-token alternative to loading full domains. Mentions calling m3_index for unknown args, differentiating among sibling 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?

Provides explicit usage modes (single, batch) with details on batch isolation and cap. Advises calling m3_index for args and notes destructive tools need env var. Doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear.

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