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 what the tool checks but doesn't describe how it behaves: whether it's a read-only check, what the output format is, if it has side effects (e.g., automatically breaking concentration), or any error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding what the tool does, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (checking concentration break conditions), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, detailed status), how to interpret results, or any dependencies on game state. For a tool that likely informs critical gameplay decisions, more context is needed.

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% (one of two parameters has a description). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain the semantics of 'characterId' or 'sessionId', their relationships, or provide examples. With partial schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate, so it meets the baseline for minimal value.

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: to check if concentration should automatically break due to specific conditions (death, unconscious, stunned, paralyzed, petrified). It uses a specific verb ('check') and identifies the resource (concentration). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'break_concentration' or 'check_concentration_duration', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a character in a concentration state), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'break_concentration' or 'check_concentration_save'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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