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 mentions 'based on their position', which adds some behavioral context about how auras are determined, but does not disclose other traits such as read-only vs. destructive, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (67% coverage), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and does not fully address the gaps in parameter semantics, making it inadequate for a tool with three parameters in a complex system.

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 67% (two out of three parameters have descriptions). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the meaning of 'position' or how 'sessionId' might be used. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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: 'Check which auras are currently affecting a specific character based on their position.' It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('auras affecting a character'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_active_auras' or 'get_character', which might provide overlapping or related information.

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 minimal usage guidance, mentioning 'based on their position' which implies context but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_active_auras' or 'get_character'. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is included.

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