nostr_relay_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "List" and "No wallet required" imply a safe read operation with no wallet dependency, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, or return shape.

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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded with the essential purpose. The second sentence is an unrelated promotional tip about `earning_opportunities`, which does not help an agent decide whether or how to call this relay-listing tool.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description is nearly complete: it says what is listed and notes that no wallet is required. Since there is no output schema, it could say more about the return format, but the complexity is low enough that this is a minor gap.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not introduce confusing parameter-like claims.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "List the configured default Nostr relay URLs." The scope phrase "configured default" helps distinguish this from relay health or feed-reading siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It gives a useful usage constraint with "No wallet required," implying the tool is safe to call without wallet setup. However, it does not explain when to use this instead of related tools like `check_relay_health`, `nostr_read_feed`, or `nostr_get_profile`.

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