Chamar tool de uma entidade

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. The term 'proxy direto' suggests transparent forwarding to another MCP tool, but nothing is said about side effects, error handling, validation of arguments, or whether the call is synchronous. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the word 'proxy'.

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 vague sentence. It is technically concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently detailed. There is room for several clarifying statements about tool invocation and arguments without becoming verbose.

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 generic dynamic proxy with 3 parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, this description is completely inadequate. The agent cannot determine valid entityId or tool values, expected argument shapes, returned data, or failure modes. It is not possible to invoke this tool reliably based on the provided definition.

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 needs to compensate, but it does not mention any of the three parameters. While the parameter names (entityId, tool, arguments) are somewhat self-explanatory, the 'tool' parameter is ambiguous and no guidance is given on how to structure arguments for dynamically invoked tools. The description adds no semantic value beyond schema-visible names.

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 'Proxy direto para uma MCP tool de uma entidade registrada' is essentially a restatement of the name and title: it says the tool directly proxies to an MCP tool of a registered entity. It adds only the words 'direct' and 'registered' without clarifying what calling an entity tool actually does, what an entity tool is, or how this differs from sibling tools like list_entities or orchestrate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not state selection criteria, mention the need for a pre-registered entity, or note when call_entity_tool would be preferable to plan_request or orchestrate. This is a clear absence of usage guidance.

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