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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (reads dialogue) and includes a parameter for narration inclusion, but it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects such as error handling, response format (though an output schema exists), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is functional but lacks depth for safe and effective use.

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 highly concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a bullet-point list of parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately, and since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error cases or usage context relative to siblings.

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 'story_key' is a chapter key with an example format and references 'list_stories' as a source, and clarifies that 'include_narration' controls whether narration and scene descriptions are included. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail all possible values or constraints.

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: '读取单章剧情的完整台词' (read the complete dialogue of a single story chapter). It specifies the verb ('读取' - read) and resource ('单章剧情' - single story chapter), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_stories' or 'read_activity', which could provide overlapping 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 some implied usage guidance by mentioning that 'story_key' can be obtained from 'list_stories', suggesting a workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_story_events' or 'read_activity', nor does it provide exclusions or clear context for choosing this specific tool.

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