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 this creates a 'template' and implies it's for Dungeon Masters, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if the template is persistent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. The mention of 'give_item' as a follow-up is helpful but insufficient 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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides context for usage. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like template persistence. For a mutation tool in a complex gaming context, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 63%, with 5 of 8 parameters having descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but the schema provides good coverage for key parameters like 'scrollDC' and 'spellClass'. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for gaps.

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 ('Create a new spell scroll item template') and resource ('spell scroll'), distinguishing it from generic item creation tools like 'create_item_template'. However, it doesn't specify what makes this template unique compared to other item templates or scroll-related tools like 'get_scroll_details'.

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 context by mentioning 'DM tool' and that the scroll 'can then be given to characters via give_item', suggesting this is for game masters preparing items. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'create_item_template' or 'give_item' directly, nor does it 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.