rpg-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 states 'solve' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only calculation or a write operation, what permissions might be needed, how errors are handled, or any rate limits. The description is too vague to inform the agent about behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 with a single sentence 'Solve algebraic equations.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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 complexity of solving algebraic equations (which can involve multiple parameters and potential outputs), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, it doesn't provide enough context for the agent to understand how to use the tool effectively, what to expect in return, or any constraints.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description 'Solve algebraic equations' adds no meaning about the parameters (equation, variable, exportFormat, sessionId), such as what formats the equation should be in, what the variable represents, or how sessionId is used. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Solve algebraic equations' clearly states the verb ('solve') and resource ('algebraic equations'), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what types of equations (e.g., linear, polynomial) or solving methods it supports, and it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'algebra_simplify', which might handle related but distinct operations.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling 'algebra_simplify' or other potential tools for mathematical operations, nor does it provide context like prerequisites or when not to use it. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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