rpg-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context beyond basic creation: it details critical verticality rules (e.g., z=0 meaning 'standing on surface', z>0 for flying/levitating, fall risks), terrain generation rules (e.g., clustering obstacles, connecting water), and pattern templates. However, it does not cover aspects like error handling, permissions, or rate limits.

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 well-structured with sections like 'WORKFLOW', 'CRITICAL VERTICALITY RULES', 'TERRAIN GENERATION RULES', and 'PATTERN TEMPLATES', making it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool, but some sections (e.g., the detailed example) are lengthy, and not every sentence is strictly essential, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 (4 parameters, nested objects, 50% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, behavioral rules, parameter usage, and provides examples. However, it lacks explicit information on return values or error cases, which would be beneficial since there is no output schema.

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?

The schema description coverage is 50%, but the description compensates richly by explaining parameter semantics beyond the schema. It clarifies the meaning of 'position.z' with verticality rules, provides examples for 'terrain.obstacles' and 'terrain.water' using pattern templates, and illustrates 'participants' with a detailed example including fields like 'hp', 'initiativeBonus', and 'isEnemy'. This adds significant value over the schema's partial documentation.

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: 'Create a combat encounter with positioned combatants and terrain.' It specifies the verb ('Create'), resource ('combat encounter'), and scope ('with positioned combatants and terrain'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'setup_tactical_encounter' or 'spawn_preset_encounter' by emphasizing structured creation with rules.

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 through workflow steps (e.g., 'Generate terrain', 'Add props', 'Place party', 'Place enemies'), suggesting a sequence for encounter creation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'setup_tactical_encounter' or 'spawn_preset_encounter', and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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