rpg-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Give items') but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires specific permissions, if items are consumed from a source, what happens on failure (e.g., invalid characterId), or any rate limits. The examples show usage but don't explain system behavior.

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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement followed by two well-chosen examples that demonstrate different use cases. Every sentence earns its place, and the JSON examples are directly instructional without unnecessary commentary.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and parameter examples but lacks completeness. It doesn't cover error conditions, return values, or system constraints (like the 20-recipient limit mentioned in schema but not description). The examples help but don't fully compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 50% (only 'distributions' has a description, 'sessionId' lacks one). The description compensates well by providing two detailed examples that illustrate the structure and semantics of the 'distributions' parameter, showing how characterId and items arrays work in practice. However, it doesn't explain the purpose of 'sessionId'.

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 with a specific verb ('Give') and resource ('items to multiple characters'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'give_item' (singular) and 'transfer_item' (one-to-one). The examples reinforce this batch distribution capability.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('Perfect for starting equipment, loot distribution, or quest rewards') with concrete examples. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, though the context implies it's for batch operations versus single-item tools.

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