prts-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it reads '纯文本内容' (plain text content), which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid page titles. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.

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 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a read operation tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameter is for specifying a wiki entry ('指定词条'), which aligns with the 'page_title' parameter. However, it doesn't add details beyond what's obvious from the parameter name, such as format examples or constraints. With 1 parameter and low schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate as it minimally addresses the parameter.

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 action ('读取' meaning 'read') and resource ('PRTS 维基指定词条的纯文本内容' meaning 'plain text content of specified PRTS wiki entry'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_prts' (searching) and 'read_story' (reading story content). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'read_activity' which might have similar reading functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'read_prts_page' versus 'search_prts' (for searching) or 'read_story' (for story content). No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context is provided.

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