buddy-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Excellently discloses: reaction depends on mood/stats/bond, exact output preservation is mandatory, altered output causes permanent species extinction from the dex, and it is part of a streak-tracking minigame with affection token mechanics. Rich behavioral and consequence context.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded action ('Pet the buddy'), followed by outcome mechanics, output handling requirements with catastrophic consequences, and game system context. Every clause earns its place; warnings about 'permanent extinction' create necessary urgency without verbosity.

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?

For a zero-parameter game action tool, coverage is comprehensive. Despite no output schema, description explains output handling requirements (preserve exact result) and consequences of misuse. No annotations, but description fully compensates with rich game mechanic context (streaks, tokens, dex, extinction).

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?

Zero parameters in schema, establishing baseline of 4. Description implies operation on a specific 'buddy' (via 'the buddy' and 'this buddy's') which adds semantic context that the empty schema cannot convey, though it doesn't explicitly clarify how the buddy is selected (current session context assumed).

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?

'Pet the buddy' provides a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings: contrast with buddy_talk (conversation), view_buddy_dex (viewing), export... (exporting), reroll (randomizing), and oracle_seek (divination). The guardian/bond framing makes the interaction distinct.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'relay the exact result as returned' and warns that 'paraphrasing breaks the accumulator.' Provides strong behavioral constraints (don't alter output) and consequences (personality drift, permanent extinction). Lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools (e.g., 'use this instead of buddy_talk when...'), but the mini-game context provides clear usage boundaries.

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