rpg-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it checks for expiration and automatically breaks concentration if expired. However, it lacks details on side effects, error handling, or what happens if concentration is not active.

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 concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and automatic behavior, with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the core action but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or how it interacts with other concentration-related tools, leaving gaps in understanding its full 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 67%, with 'sessionId' lacking a description. The tool description adds no explicit parameter semantics, but the purpose implies that 'characterId' identifies the concentrator and 'currentRound' is used for duration comparison. Since there are only 3 parameters and the schema covers most, a baseline near 4 is appropriate.

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 ('check') and resource ('character's concentration'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'break_concentration' and 'check_concentration_save' by focusing on duration-based expiration rather than manual breaking or saving throws.

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 implies usage in combat scenarios where concentration duration matters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_automatic_concentration_break' or 'break_concentration', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing concentration to be active.

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