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 states this is a creation operation, implying it's a write/mutation tool, but doesn't mention permissions, side effects, or what happens on failure. It provides an example but no details on response format, error handling, or whether it's idempotent. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a helpful example. Both sentences are relevant and add value, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the purpose from the example.

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 complexity (6 parameters including a nested object, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover all parameters, lacks behavioral context for a mutation tool, and provides no information on return values or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool with this level of complexity.

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 description lists 'name, seed, and dimensions' as parameters, which partially maps to the 6 parameters in the schema (name, seed, width, height, environment, sessionId). With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds some value by highlighting key fields, but it doesn't explain the optional 'environment' object or 'sessionId', leaving significant gaps. The example shows usage but lacks detailed semantics.

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 world') and specifies the resource ('in the database'), along with key attributes (name, seed, dimensions). It distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_world' or 'get_world' by focusing on database creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'generate_world' which might be a similar sibling tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_world' or 'update_world_environment'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether a session must be initialized first, or any constraints on world creation. The example shows usage but doesn't explain when it's appropriate.

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