anp.invokeOpenRPC

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. While it mentions the protocol (JSON-RPC 2.0) and that it handles '结构化交互' (structured interactions), it lacks critical behavioral details: authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, or what the response format looks like. For a tool that makes remote calls, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that convey the core functionality. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second adds context about interacting with ANP agents. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 complexity of making JSON-RPC calls, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication needs, or provide examples of typical usage. For a 4-parameter tool that performs remote procedure calls, this leaves too many unknowns for effective agent use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how parameters should be structured, provide examples, or clarify relationships between parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: '使用 JSON-RPC 2.0 协议调用 OpenRPC 端点上的方法' (invoke methods on OpenRPC endpoints using JSON-RPC 2.0 protocol). It specifies the verb ('调用' - invoke) and resource ('OpenRPC 端点上的方法' - methods on OpenRPC endpoints), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like anp.fetchDoc or anp.setAuth, which appear to have different purposes.

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 provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions '此工具处理与暴露 OpenRPC 接口的 ANP 智能体的结构化交互' (this tool handles structured interactions with ANP agents exposing OpenRPC interfaces), which gives some context about when to use it, but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives like anp.fetchDoc or anp.setAuth, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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