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. It mentions the output is ordered officially, which adds some behavioral context, but fails to disclose critical traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose clearly, and the second provides essential parameter guidance. There is no wasted text, and the structure efficiently conveys necessary information in two concise sentences.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), one parameter with low schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and hints at usage, but could improve by adding more behavioral details (e.g., safety, performance) to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'event_id' is an activity ID like 'act31side' and specifies it can be obtained from 'list_story_events'. This clarifies the parameter's purpose and source, compensating well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't detail format constraints beyond the example.

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: '列出指定活动的所有剧情章节' (list all story chapters for a specified event). It specifies the verb (list), resource (story chapters), and scope (for a specified event, ordered officially). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'read_story' or 'list_story_events', which could handle similar story-related 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 by specifying that 'event_id' can be obtained from 'list_story_events', suggesting a workflow. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_story' or 'list_story_events', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the parameter source.

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