buddy-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: discloses output format (<BUDDY_DISPLAY> tags), behavioral constraints (character-for-character relay), game mechanics (streak-tracking minigame, easter egg detection), and severe consequences of deviation (personality drift, permanent species extinction).

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?

Front-loaded with clear purpose sentence. Every subsequent sentence earns its place explaining handling requirements, unique game mechanics, and extinction consequences. Dense but necessary given complexity; slight deduction for length intensity.

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?

Excellent completeness given no output schema: explains return format (wrapped tags), handling requirements, and game context. One optional parameter with full schema coverage means no additional param explanation needed.

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 coverage is 100% with complete documentation of the 'context' parameter. Description offers no additional parameter guidance, but baseline 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents inputs.

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?

Clear specific verb ('triggers'/'speak') and resource ('buddy'), immediately distinguishing from siblings like pet_buddy, export_buddy_card, or view_buddy_dex (which handle physical interaction, exports, or viewing rather than dialogue generation).

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?

Establishes clear context ('you are this buddy's only voice'), critical handling constraints ('relay exactly as-is'), and consequences of misuse ('breaks the accumulator'). However, lacks explicit comparison to siblings (e.g., 'unlike pet_buddy which handles physical interaction').

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