arc_rpc_consensus

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output (consensus count and head) and the REFUSED status condition, which is critical behavioral context. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, but that is implied by the nature of a consensus check. It also doesn't discuss potential rate limits or error cases, but for a simple read-only tool this is adequate.

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 two sentences, both dense with information. The primary output is front-loaded, and the usage guideline is immediately actionable. No filler or repetition.

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 parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns and how to interpret it. It even provides a practical rule (REFUSED below 2). An agent can invoke it without further clarification.

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 nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It appropriately focuses on output semantics instead.

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 function: reporting how many of four public RPCs agreed and the agreed head. The verb 'agree' and specific resource 'Arc's four public RPCs' make the purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on health, launchpads, APRs, token screens, etc., so there's no confusion.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'A cheap trust gate before acting on other Arc data.' It also gives a conditional threshold ('Below 2 the status is REFUSED') and instructs to treat Arc figures as unchecked until consensus is restored. This is clear, actionable guidance for an agent deciding whether to use this tool.

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