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 adds useful context: it mentions that activity text may be large (implying potential performance considerations) and explains pagination behavior (page parameter for batch retrieval, default returns all chapters). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a tool with pagination and filtering parameters.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized: it starts with the core purpose, adds usage context, and then details parameters in a clear Args section. Every sentence earns its place, but minor redundancy exists (e.g., '单次活动文本量可能较大' could be integrated more tightly). It's front-loaded with key information, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 (4 parameters, pagination, filtering), no annotations, but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics well. However, it lacks behavioral details like error cases or performance limits, which would be helpful despite the output schema. For a read-only tool with output schema, it's above minimum viable but not fully comprehensive.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does so effectively: it explains all 4 parameters in the Args section, clarifying event_id format (e.g., 'act31side'), include_narration default and purpose, page usage (starts at 1, optional for full retrieval), and page_size default. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameters understandable.

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: '读取整个活动的完整剧情台词（按官方章节顺序合并）' (read the complete script/dialogue of an entire activity in official chapter order). It specifies the resource (activity story/dialogue) and the verb (read/retrieve), distinguishing it from siblings like list_stories or read_story by focusing on full activity content rather than listing or reading individual stories.

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 context for when to use this tool: '适合需要了解完整活动故事的场景' (suitable for scenarios needing to understand the complete activity story). It also mentions that activity text volume may be large, suggesting pagination usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as read_story for individual stories.

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