run_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the discovery-fallback scenario and the canonical name shape, but says nothing about error behavior when the name is unknown, whether 'arguments' is validated against the target tool's schema, or what the call returns.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The core action is stated first, followed by the fallback condition, with the naming example embedded where it is needed.

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 two-parameter pass-through tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and the discovery workaround adequately, but leaves gaps around argument forwarding semantics and failure modes that the empty schema cannot fill.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the 'name' parameter format via the 'weather_tool__current' example, which is genuinely useful. However, the 'arguments' parameter (a nested object passed to the target tool) is never mentioned, leaving half the interface undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Call a tool created with create_tool by its full name') and immediately contrasts with the sibling create_tool by implying invocation rather than creation. The example name 'weather_tool__current' pins down the full-name format, though it never states what happens when the call succeeds or fails.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition: 'Use this if a newly created tool does not show up in your tool list.' That is a clear when-to-use rule, but it offers no when-not guidance (e.g., prefer the normal tool listing when the tool is visible) and no prerequisite about create_tool having been run first.

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