rpg-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes functional capabilities (supported notation types) but lacks behavioral details such as whether results are deterministic (seed parameter hints at this), output format expectations, error handling for invalid expressions, or performance considerations. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('Roll dice using standard notation') and efficiently lists supported features in a single, well-structured sentence. Every part earns its place by clarifying capabilities without redundancy or fluff, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the primary use case and expression semantics but misses details on other parameters, behavioral traits, and output expectations. It's adequate for basic usage but lacks depth for full contextual understanding.

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 indirectly explains the 'expression' parameter through examples (e.g., '2d6+3', '4d6dl1'), providing semantic meaning for dice notation. However, it doesn't address other parameters like 'seed', 'exportFormat', or 'sessionId'. Since there are 4 parameters and only 1 is partially covered, the description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 explicitly states the verb ('Roll dice') and resource ('dice'), specifies the notation ('standard notation'), and lists supported features like basic rolls, drop/keep mechanics, advantage/disadvantage, and exploding dice. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools (e.g., roll_ability_check, roll_saving_throw) by focusing on generic dice rolling with advanced notation rather than specific game mechanics.

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 examples of supported notation (e.g., '2d6+3', '4d6dl1'), suggesting it's for any dice-rolling need with these features. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like roll_ability_check or roll_saving_throw, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is contextual but not explicit.

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