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 key behavioral traits: the tool checks recognition (implying a read operation) and specifies different logic for owners (always recognize) versus guards (check based on heat/bounty). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., boolean result or detailed response), leaving gaps for a mutation-free tool.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two short sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage guidelines. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing, making it easy for an agent to parse 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 the tool's moderate complexity (checking recognition with conditional logic), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the core purpose and some behavioral context but lacks details on return values, error handling, or deeper integration with sibling tools. This makes it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 75% (3 out of 4 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how npcId, characterId, or itemId interact with the recognition logic). It only implies general usage without enhancing parameter understanding.

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: 'Check if NPC recognizes stolen item.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('stolen item'), and distinguishes the action from generic checks by focusing on recognition of stolen items. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_item_stolen' or 'check_stolen_items_on_character', which prevents a perfect score.

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: 'Owner always recognizes; guards check vs heat/bounty.' This gives guidance on how different NPC types (owners vs. guards) affect recognition, which helps the agent understand appropriate scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for related checks, keeping it from a score of 5.

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