rpg-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool marks objectives as 'fully completed,' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, affects quest state, or has side effects. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for a mutation 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, though this conciseness may contribute to gaps in other dimensions.

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, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and context, making it inadequate for a mutation tool in a complex system with many siblings. More information is needed to understand usage and effects.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'objective' but doesn't explain the three parameters (questId, objectiveId, sessionId) or their relationships. No additional meaning is provided beyond the schema's property names, leaving parameters undocumented.

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 action ('Mark') and resource ('an objective'), specifying it's about completion. It distinguishes from sibling 'complete_quest' by focusing on objectives rather than quests, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_objective' which might handle partial progress.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_objective' (which might handle partial completion) or 'complete_quest' (for broader quest completion). The description implies usage for finalizing objectives but lacks explicit context or prerequisites.

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