rpc_export

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

The description discloses that the function returns None, is a reflective shim, and explains why it cannot accept a Python callable due to protocol limitations. This adds behavioral context beyond the absence of annotations.

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 brief with two sentences and a code example, efficiently conveying the core behavior. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 specialized nature and lack of output schema, the description covers the overall process but lacks detail on parameter semantics and return values (returns None). It provides adequate context for the intended use case but leaves gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'session' and 'name' in passing without detailing their meaning, format, or constraints. For example, it does not specify what constitutes a valid session string or naming conventions.

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 the tool registers a stub RPC export that the script side can call. It distinguishes itself from taking a Python callable directly, which aligns with its unique purpose among sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other registration-like tools.

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 explains that the tool is a reflective shim and implies usage via the follow-up wiring step. It does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the intended context.

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