describe_rpc_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves help information, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the structured help output. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse. The structure is clear and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), one parameter with good semantic coverage in the description, and no annotations, the description is largely complete. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or usage prerequisites, which are important for a tool interacting with RPC commands. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that the 'command' parameter is an RPC command name and provides examples ('getblock', 'sendrawtransaction'), clarifying usage. With only one parameter and no schema descriptions, this compensates well, though it could specify format constraints or valid command lists.

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 specific action ('Get structured help') and resource ('Bitcoin RPC command'), with explicit details on what information is provided ('description, arguments, examples'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_rpc_commands' by focusing on detailed help for a single command rather than listing available commands.

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 by specifying it's for Bitcoin RPC commands, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_rpc_commands' for command discovery or other analysis tools. It provides clear intent but lacks explicit comparison or exclusion guidance.

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