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 discloses the key behavioral trait ('Automatically breaks concentration if save fails'), which is critical for a mutation tool. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or what happens on success (e.g., concentration continues). It adds value but is incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the DC rule and outcome. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple tool but lacks details on success behavior, error handling, or return values. It covers the basic mechanics but could be more complete for a mutation tool in a complex gaming 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% (2 out of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description does not explicitly mention parameters, but it implies the need for 'damageAmount' in the DC calculation and context for 'characterId'. Since coverage is moderate, the description compensates by clarifying the tool's logic, earning a score above the baseline.

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 specific action ('Roll a Constitution saving throw to maintain concentration after taking damage'), the resource involved ('concentration'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'break_concentration' and 'check_concentration_duration' by focusing on the saving throw mechanic triggered by damage.

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 when to use this tool ('after taking damage') and provides the DC calculation rule, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like 'check_automatic_concentration_break' for cases where concentration breaks without a save. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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