rpg-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that 'ONE CALL generates entire layout' (batch generation behavior) and provides pattern-specific behavioral traits (e.g., maze creates corridors & walls, maze_rooms adds chambers). However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are needed, rate limits, or what the output looks like (no output schema exists).

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 well-structured with clear sections (PATTERNS, MAZE EXAMPLE, MAZE WITH ROOMS) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the pattern list could be slightly more concise. The examples are appropriately detailed without being verbose.

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 (9 parameters, procedural generation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers pattern semantics and usage examples well, but lacks critical behavioral context (destructive vs. read-only, output format, error conditions). For a generation tool with significant parameters, more comprehensive disclosure would be beneficial.

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 high (89%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining pattern semantics (what each pattern generates), providing concrete examples with parameter combinations, and clarifying usage constraints (e.g., corridorWidth for 'maze patterns only', roomCount for 'maze_rooms pattern only'). This goes well beyond the schema's enum and 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 generates terrain using pattern templates with a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('terrain'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on procedural terrain generation rather than narrative, combat, or character management tools listed. The opening sentence explicitly defines the core function.

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 clear context for when to use specific patterns (e.g., 'USE THIS FOR MAZES' for the maze pattern, and pattern-specific examples like maze_rooms with roomCount), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_terrain_patch or generate_world from the sibling list. The guidance is pattern-specific rather than tool-alternative focused.

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