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 that the tool does not consume the scroll and returns check requirement and DC, which is good. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation, which is important for a tool that checks usability.

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 key information: what the tool does and what it returns. There is no wasted text, 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 no annotations, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains the core functionality and return values, but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and the purpose of the 'sessionId' parameter, making it incomplete for full contextual understanding.

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 add meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain the parameters further. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema provides some documentation but the description does not compensate for the undocumented 'sessionId' parameter.

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 specific verbs ('check', 'use') and resources ('character', 'scroll'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'use_spell_scroll' (which would consume it) and 'get_scroll_use_dc' (which might not check character-specific usability).

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 by specifying 'without consuming it', suggesting this is for pre-use verification rather than actual scroll activation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'use_spell_scroll' or 'get_scroll_use_dc', leaving some ambiguity.

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