call_method

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that arguments must be scalar literals and that string arguments are sent as quoted text literals, not references. This clarifies a common pitfall. The annotations already indicate destructive=true and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered, but the literal-reference distinction is a valuable addition.

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 well-structured and information-dense. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains a critical constraint, and the third gives usage guidance. Every sentence provides value, with no filler or 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?

Given the tool's generic nature and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to use it, argument limitations, and preferable alternatives. The only notable gap is the unexplained 'path' parameter, which reduces completeness slightly. Overall, it is sufficient for safe and correct usage.

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 explains 'method' and 'args' semantics (literals, positional), but 'path' is never mentioned or defined. This leaves the path parameter ambiguous, and since the schema provides no descriptions either, the agent cannot infer the correct usage for this parameter.

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 function: 'Call an explicitly named PLAXIS method with literal positional arguments.' It uses a specific verb (call) and resource (PLAXIS method), and distinguishes itself from siblings by directing users to prefer list_objects, model_state, and first-class tools for exploration.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this only for methods whose PLAXIS command reference shows purely literal parameters; prefer list_objects, model_state, and the first-class tools over probing with dump.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and what alternatives to prefer, giving clear contextual boundaries.

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