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 implies this is a read-only operation (listing events) and mentions optional filtering by category. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what happens when no events match. The description adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 purpose, followed by a clear parameter explanation and usage suggestion. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and usage guidelines. However, without annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., response format hints), though the output schema mitigates this gap.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining the 'category' parameter: it's optional, with values 'main' for main story chapters and 'activities' for event stories (including collaborations), and if not provided, returns all events. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover edge cases like invalid categories.

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: '列出明日方舟剧情活动列表' (list Arknights story events). It specifies the resource (story events) and the action (list). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_stories' beyond an implied usage suggestion.

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 clear usage guidance: '建议先调用本工具了解活动全貌，再用 list_stories 查询具体章节' (suggest calling this tool first to understand the overall events, then use list_stories to query specific chapters). It mentions an alternative (list_stories) and suggests a workflow, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare with other siblings like 'read_activity'.

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