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 the tool executes actions but doesn't describe what happens after execution (e.g., turn progression, state changes, error handling), whether it's idempotent, or any side effects. The examples show input structures but no behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 appropriately sized but not optimally structured. The initial statement is clear, but the extensive examples (5 JSON blocks) dominate the description. While helpful, they could be more efficiently integrated or referenced. The content earns its place but could be more front-loaded with critical usage information.

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 (13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. The examples provide valuable context for parameter usage, but there are significant gaps: no information about return values, error conditions, or how this tool integrates with the broader combat/turn system. It's adequate for basic understanding but lacks comprehensive context.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 46%, the description compensates significantly by providing detailed examples that illustrate parameter usage across different action types. The examples clarify which parameters are needed for specific actions (e.g., targetId for attack/heal, targetPosition for move), adding substantial semantic value beyond the sparse schema descriptions.

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 as 'Execute a combat action' and lists specific action types (attack, heal, move, cast_spell, etc.), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling combat-related tools like 'execute_lair_action' or 'submit_turn_actions', which prevents a perfect score.

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. While examples show different combat actions, there's no mention of prerequisites, timing constraints, or when to choose this over other combat or turn-management tools in the extensive sibling list. The examples imply usage but don't provide explicit guidelines.

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