trpc_raw

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It warns that reads may return sensitive data (env vars/secrets) and that mutations bypass curated tool protections. It also explains the confirmation requirement for writes. These are important behavioral disclosures.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with purpose and examples. It uses clear warnings and structure, making it easy to parse without unnecessary words.

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 a raw access tool, the description covers purpose, usage, risks, and parameter semantics. No output schema is provided, but the description mentions reads can return sensitive data, partially addressing outputs. It is sufficiently complete for the tool's nature.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds context beyond the schema, such as the procedure format with examples and safety notes on isMutation and confirm parameters. It adds value without repeating schema info.

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: calling any tRPC procedure not covered by dedicated tools. It gives specific examples of namespaces (traefik.*, branding.*, etc.) and distinguishes it from sibling tools by being a raw access for advanced features.

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 when to use (advanced features not covered by other tools) and how to distinguish read vs write operations with warnings. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance but the context of sibling tools implies alternatives exist.

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