execute_tool

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description does not repeat that. It adds the important constraint that the tool must come from discover_tools, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single, brief sentence that front-loads the purpose and parameter essentials without any fluff. It is appropriately short for a simple proxy concept, though it could benefit from slightly more elaboration without losing conciseness.

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 complexity of a proxy tool that can execute any tool, the description is minimal and omits key guidance. It does not explicitly state the prerequisite of calling discover_tools first, nor does it explain error handling or what happens with invalid tool names. The schema provides some context, but the tool description itself is insufficient for a complete understanding.

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 100%, and the description merely restates the parameter names (tool_name + params) without adding further meaning. Since the schema already documents both parameters fully, the description adds no extra value, matching the baseline score for high coverage.

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 that this is a proxy execution tool for tools discovered via discover_tools, taking a tool_name and params. It effectively identifies the function as a meta-tool that runs other tools, which distinguishes it from the specific sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly mention the return value, though that is implied to be the result of the underlying 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?

The description implies the tool is to be used after discover_tools by referencing 'discover_tools 결과 도구' (tools from discover_tools results), but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus directly calling a specific tool. It lacks clear guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage conditions to inference.

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