rpg-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool marks a quest as completed and grants rewards, implying a mutation operation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether it's idempotent, error conditions (e.g., invalid quest state), or what 'rewards' entail. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and outcome, making it easy 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 complexity (a mutation operation with three parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral nuances, parameter details, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 for three undocumented parameters. It mentions 'quest' and implies 'character' via 'grant rewards', but doesn't explain parameter meanings (e.g., characterId identifies who completes the quest, questId specifies which quest, sessionId's purpose is unclear). The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 as completed') and outcome ('grant rewards'), specifying both verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'assign_quest' or 'update_objective' by focusing on completion rather than assignment or modification, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., quest must be assigned, objectives must be met), exclusions, or related tools like 'complete_objective' or 'update_quest', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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