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. 'End' implies a destructive/mutative action, but the description doesn't specify what 'ending' entails (e.g., does it archive data, trigger cleanup, or change state permanently?), nor does it mention permissions, side effects, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps 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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (50% coverage), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, outcomes, error handling, and usage context, leaving too much ambiguity for effective tool invocation.

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 50% (only 'encounterId' has a description). The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain the purpose of 'encounterId' or 'sessionId', their formats, or relationships. With moderate schema coverage but no compensatory details in the description, this meets the baseline.

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 ('End') and target ('the current combat encounter'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'resolve_encounter' or 'complete_encounter' that might exist in similar systems, though none are explicitly listed among the provided siblings.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether an encounter must be active), exclusions, or related tools like 'create_encounter' or 'get_encounter_state' from the sibling list.

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