run_method

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'whitelisted API' which hints at security/permission constraints, but doesn't elaborate on what this means in practice. It doesn't describe error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, side effects, or what types of methods can be called. For a tool that executes arbitrary server-side code, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter breakdown. Each sentence earns its place by providing necessary information. The 'Args:' section is well-organized but could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanations into the main flow rather than as a separate section.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While it covers parameter semantics adequately, it lacks crucial context about what this tool actually does behaviorally - what types of methods can be called, what permissions are needed, what the response looks like, and how errors are handled. The 'whitelisted API' hint is insufficient for a tool that executes server-side code.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides essential semantic information for all 3 parameters. It explains that 'method' is a 'Dotted method path' with concrete examples, clarifies that 'http_method' can be 'GET or POST' with a default, and specifies that 'args' is an 'Optional JSON string of keyword arguments.' This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all possible edge cases or provide format details for the JSON string.

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: 'Call a server-side method (whitelisted API).' It specifies the verb ('Call') and resource ('server-side method'), and the parenthetical '(whitelisted API)' adds important context about access restrictions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'run_report' or 'make_mapped_doc' which might also involve server-side execution.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (like create_document, update_document, run_report, etc.), there's no indication of when this generic method-calling tool is appropriate versus using more specific tools. The '(whitelisted API)' hint suggests some methods are allowed while others aren't, but this isn't developed into actionable guidance.

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