trpc_raw

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that this is a direct, unmediated passthrough to any of 347 procedures across 43 namespaces, including mutations. However, it does not warn about the risks of calling arbitrary write procedures, unexpected raw response shapes, or lack of validation, which would be valuable for a raw fallback tool.

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 long and front-loads the core purpose and usage rule. The examples are useful and not excessive, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The fallback purpose and example procedure names provide good orientation, but the description omits guidance on how to structure the 'input' object, what the response format will be, or what happens on invalid procedures. For a raw passthrough tool with no output schema and no annotations, this leaves meaningful gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 description adds useful naming convention context through examples for the 'procedure' parameter. However, with schema coverage at 67%, it does not compensate for the undocumented 'input' object parameter, and it does not explain how 'isMutation' should be chosen beyond the schema's brief description.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Call any EasyPanel tRPC procedure directly.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by positioning itself as the fallback for anything not covered above, and the examples (wordpress.getPlugins, box.createService) concretely illustrate its scope.

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 phrase 'Use for anything not covered above' explicitly tells an agent when to select this tool over the dedicated siblings. This is a direct usage rule with an implicit when-not condition: prefer the listed tools when available.

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