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. While it indicates this is a read operation ('获取' - get/retrieve), it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits such as error handling (what happens if the operator name isn't found), response format, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a real-time query versus cached data. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context.

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 appropriately concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key usage requirement. It's front-loaded with the main functionality, followed by the important input format specification. There's no wasted text, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more structure or separation of concerns.

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 the return values), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with no annotations and minimal schema documentation, the description should do more to compensate. It adequately covers the basic purpose and input format but lacks behavioral context, error handling information, and differentiation from sibling tools. The description is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that the operator_name parameter should be in Chinese as used in-game, providing an example ('阿米娅'). However, it doesn't explain the parameter's purpose beyond what's obvious from the name, nor does it provide guidance on valid values, character limits, or formatting beyond language. The description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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: retrieving basic information about a specific operator, listing the types of information included (profession, rarity, faction, recruitment tags, talents). It uses a specific verb ('获取' - get/retrieve) and resource ('干员的基本信息' - operator's basic information). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_operator_archives or get_operator_voicelines, which likely provide different types of operator information.

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 implied usage guidance by specifying that operator names should be in Chinese as used in-game (e.g., '阿米娅'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_operator_archives or search_prts, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is limited to input format requirements.

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