test_trpc_endpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'detailed response' but doesn't specify what that entails (e.g., response format, error handling, or side effects). For a testing tool with potential mutations (e.g., 'user.updateLastAccess'), this lack of detail on safety or behavior 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, with no wasted 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 testing endpoints (which may involve mutations) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral implications, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use this tool effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('method' and 'params'). The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid methods beyond those in the schema or clarification on 'params' usage. Baseline 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 the tool's purpose: 'Test specific tRPC endpoint with detailed response.' It specifies the verb ('test') and resource ('tRPC endpoint'), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'test_calendar_endpoints' or 'test_page_content' beyond mentioning 'tRPC' specifically.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over other testing tools like 'test_calendar_endpoints' or 'test_page_content', nor does it specify prerequisites such as authentication requirements or appropriate contexts for testing tRPC endpoints.

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