omv_list_methods

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. As a listing operation, it is implicitly read-only, and the description adds the prerequisite relationship with omv_call. It doesn't detail output format or error handling, but for a simple introspection tool, that is acceptable.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second explains why to use it.

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 tool of this simplicity, the description is complete: it states the action, the timing relative to omv_call, and the parameter source. Without an output schema, it doesn't describe the return format, but the name 'list_methods' makes it obvious. Slight gap around failure modes keeps it from a 5.

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 schema description covers 100% of the single parameter (service), and the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since 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 that the tool lists every method of an RPC service, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like omv_call (which calls a method) and omv_list_services (which lists services).

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 explicitly instructs to call this tool before omv_call to get the exact method name instead of guessing. This provides clear, actionable guidance on when to use this tool, fulfilling the dimension completely.

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