list_rpc_commands

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 successfully communicates the categorical grouping of results, but omits other behavioral traits such as caching behavior, performance characteristics, or whether the command list is static or dynamic.

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, efficient sentence with the action verb front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose: 'List' (action), 'all available' (scope), 'RPC commands' (resource), 'grouped by category' (output structure). Zero 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 simplicity (zero parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential information needed for invocation. It could be enhanced by noting this is a discovery/index tool amidst the large sibling set, but it meets the minimum viable threshold for completeness.

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 input schema contains zero parameters, which establishes a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately does not introduce non-existent parameters, maintaining consistency with the empty schema.

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 action (List), resource (RPC commands), scope (all available), and organization (grouped by category). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'describe_rpc_command' tool, which could cause confusion about whether to use this for overview or detailed inspection.

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 this is for discovering/cataloging available commands via the 'List all' phrasing, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'describe_rpc_command' or other analysis tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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