game_rpc

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

No annotations exist, and the description adds minimal behavioral context. It does not explain side effects, authorization needs (e.g., authority mode), what happens on error, or if configure changes node state. The description is too brief to compensate for missing annotations.

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 short sentence front-loading the purpose. While concise, it could benefit from slight expansion without losing efficiency.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain RPC concepts, action types, mode/sync behavior, or expected results.

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 for all 7 parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline applies.

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 calls or configures RPC methods on nodes, with specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like game_call_method and game_connect_signal, though could be more explicit about RPC's networking context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like game_call_method or game_connect_signal. No when-not or context for RPC vs direct method calls.

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