prts-mcp

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. The description only states what the tool does (retrieves archive materials) but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens with invalid operator names. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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 extremely concise—a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality and input requirement. There's no wasted language, and the key information (what it does and the input format) is front-loaded appropriately.

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 that there's an output schema (which presumably documents return values), the description doesn't need to explain output structure. However, for a tool with no annotations and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and input format but lacks behavioral context, usage differentiation from siblings, and error handling information that would be helpful for an AI agent.

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 some semantic context for the single parameter: it clarifies that 'operator_name' should be the Chinese name as used in-game (e.g., '阿米娅'). However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates partially by explaining the expected format, but doesn't provide examples beyond one, list valid operators, or explain handling of edge cases.

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: '获取指定干员的档案资料' (get specified operator's archive materials). It specifies the resource (operator archives) and the action (get/retrieve). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like get_operator_basic_info or get_operator_voicelines, which likely retrieve different aspects of operator data.

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 minimal usage guidance: it specifies that operator names should be in Chinese as used in-game (e.g., '阿米娅'). However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_operator_basic_info or list_stories, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is limited to input format only.

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