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. It mentions the tool is for 'manually' breaking concentration, implying a user-initiated action, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or response format. It adds some context (e.g., reasons for use) but doesn't fully cover behavioral traits like error handling or state changes.

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 front-loaded and efficient, using two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage guidelines without unnecessary words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error conditions, or return values. For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, it's adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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?

With 75% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by implying the 'reason' parameter's usage context (e.g., 'voluntary breaks' maps to 'voluntary' enum), but doesn't detail parameter interactions like 'damageAmount' only applying to 'damage' reason. It compensates partially for the schema's gaps.

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 ('break') and resource ('a character's concentration on a spell'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for manual breaks, unlike automated checks like 'check_concentration_save' or 'check_automatic_concentration_break'.

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?

It explicitly lists when to use this tool: for voluntary breaks, incapacitation, death, or when casting a new concentration spell, providing clear context without exclusions, which helps differentiate it from other concentration-related tools.

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