sonar_execute_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 states the execution action and return values (tool result or error dict) but does not discuss side effects, destructive potential, or authentication needs. The behavior is partially transparent.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative without redundancy.

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 usage flow (get schema first) and basic behavior. With an output schema available, the lack of detailed return format is acceptable. It could mention that the output depends on the specific tool executed, but the guidance is adequate.

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 the description adds value by providing an example for tool_name ('sonar_list_issues') and directing users to sonar_get_tool_schema for argument details. This compensates for the lack of schema description.

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 tool's purpose: 'Execute any SonarQube tool by name with the provided arguments.' It distinguishes from siblings like sonar_get_tool_schema (schema retrieval) and sonar_list_categories (listing).

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 advises using this tool after obtaining the schema via sonar_get_tool_schema, which is a clear prerequisite. It does not explicitly list when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient for an executor tool.

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