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 mentions the initiative timing and pending flag condition, which are useful behavioral constraints. However, it doesn't describe what 'execute' entails operationally—whether it's a read-only simulation or a destructive state change, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or what the response looks like. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and conditions. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately specifies prerequisites. This is a model of efficiency in tool descriptions.

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 complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after execution, what the return value contains, error conditions, or side effects. For a tool that likely modifies encounter state (implied by 'execute'), this lack of operational context makes it incomplete for safe and effective use by 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?

The schema description coverage is high (88%), so most parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema—it implies 'targetIds' are for 'environmental effects' and mentions damage application, but doesn't clarify parameter interactions or usage nuances. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Execute a lair action at initiative 20 when isLairActionPending is true. Apply environmental effects to targets.' It specifies the verb ('execute'), resource ('lair action'), and conditions (initiative 20, pending flag). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute_combat_action' or 'apply_custom_effect', which might handle similar combat or effect scenarios.

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 implicit usage context by stating 'when isLairActionPending is true' and 'at initiative 20', which suggests this tool should be used during specific combat phases. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for similar actions (e.g., 'execute_combat_action' for regular combat actions). The guidance is useful but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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