call_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 It discloses that it accepts unpublished raw debug commands, runs on one instance, waits until the game reports the command applied, and returns the state after execution. This gives an agent crucial insight into side effects and synchronization behavior beyond the schema.

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 two focused sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the important behavioral qualifiers about command applicability and waiting semantics are delivered compactly.

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 is largely complete for a generic dynamic executor, especially given the schema documents parameters. It covers purpose, target scope, command breadth, and post-command state. It does not enumerate return-value shapes or possible errors, but that is difficult for arbitrary tools and is not a major gap.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics to the 'name' parameter by explaining it can be any tool from the instance's toolsets or any raw debug command, even unpublished. It also implicitly ties 'port' to 'one instance' and clarifies that arguments are forwarded to the selected tool or command.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Run a tool on one instance and return the result.' It clearly distinguishes call_tool from the lifecycle/discovery siblings (launch_instance, list_instances, stop_instance, instance_log) by framing it as the generic executor for any tool or command.

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 implies usage context instead of stating it explicitly: use this tool when you need to run any tool or raw debug command against a single instance. However, it never mentions alternatives or calls out when not to use it, such as preferring instance_log for log retrieval or launch_instance for starting a game.

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