invoke_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that 'Arguments are validated before running', a key behavioral trait. It also reveals its fallback role ('not loaded natively') and discovery method, but does not describe side effects or error handling, which are delegated to the invoked 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then a usage hint. Every clause earns its place: the action, the discovery pointer, a validation guarantee, and the when-to-use. No wasted words.

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 generic dispatcher with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains what, when, and a key behavior. It does not explain return format or error propagation, but since the tool can invoke any tool with varied outputs, that is understandably absent. The coverage is adequate for an agent to select and use it.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that the name must be 'exact' and pointing to `search_tools` for valid names/schemas, enriching the meaning of the `name` parameter beyond the schema. The `arguments` parameter is well-covered by the 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 states 'Run any WebCake tool by exact name with its arguments', giving a clear verb ('Run'), resource ('any WebCake tool'), and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which target specific functions, by establishing itself as a generic invocation tool.

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?

It provides explicit usage context with 'Use this for tools that are not loaded natively', telling the agent when to invoke this meta-tool. It also directs discovery via 'discover names + schemas via search_tools', but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, though the 'natively' phrasing implies avoiding it for native tools.

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