Plecs List Methods

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds that the list comes from the *running* PLECS build, hinting results are environment-specific, but it doesn't state that a live connection is required or that the set varies by build version.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the underlying RPC name in parentheses. No filler or 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?

An output schema exists, so the return values needn't be explained, and with no parameters the definition covers everything required to invoke it. The only missing piece is the connection prerequisite for a 'running build', a minor gap for a trivial read tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to explain inputs, and it correctly presents a no-argument call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List RPC methods') and grounds it in the underlying call (system.listMethods) and the running PLECS build. It is distinguishable from plecs_rpc (invoke arbitrary method) and plecs_method_help (documentation for a method), though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied as a discovery step before calling plecs_method_help or plecs_rpc, but the description never says when to reach for this instead of those siblings, nor any prerequisite such as an active connection. An agent can infer the discovery role but is given no explicit routing.

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