rpg-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format might be, potential side effects, or any constraints like computational complexity or session requirements implied by the sessionId parameter.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with no wasted language. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 tool with 3 parameters (one with enum values), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't address the tool's complexity, parameter meanings, behavioral characteristics, or relationship to sibling tools.

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%, meaning none of the three parameters have schema descriptions. The description provides no information about parameters beyond what's in the schema structure. It doesn't explain what 'expression' should contain, what 'exportFormat' options mean, or what 'sessionId' is for.

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 'Simplify algebraic expressions' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'algebra_simplify' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'algebra_solve' or clarify what types of algebraic expressions it handles (e.g., polynomials, rational expressions).

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 the sibling tool 'algebra_solve' for solving equations, nor does it specify appropriate contexts or prerequisites for simplification versus solving.

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