prts-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the language requirement (Chinese names) but doesn't describe what the tool returns (voice line format, structure), whether it's read-only or has side effects, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word serves a purpose: stating the action, specifying the resource, and providing critical input guidance. There's zero waste or redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity (single parameter but specific format requirements), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core operation and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context about what voice lines are returned, their structure, or any limitations. The output schema existence reduces but doesn't eliminate the need for some behavioral description.

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 crucial semantic information beyond the schema: it specifies that 'operator_name' must be '游戏内中文名' (in-game Chinese name) like '阿米娅'. With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this guidance significantly compensates for the schema's lack of documentation, though it doesn't cover all possible edge cases or validation rules.

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: '获取指定干员的语音记录' (get voice lines for a specified operator). It specifies the verb (get) and resource (operator voice lines), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_operator_basic_info' or 'get_operator_archives' that might provide different 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 implies usage context by specifying '使用游戏内中文名' (use in-game Chinese name), which helps guide parameter input. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_operator_archives' or 'get_operator_basic_info', leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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