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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves the 'current state' but doesn't specify what that state includes (e.g., character positions, health, effects), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any performance considerations like caching. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and safety profile.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. There's no redundancy or fluff, and every word serves to convey essential information efficiently.

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 of combat encounters in this system and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'state' entails (e.g., JSON structure, included fields like health or effects), how it relates to other encounter tools, or any error conditions. For a tool that likely returns detailed data, this minimal description leaves too much unspecified for effective use.

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%, with 'encounterId' documented but 'sessionId' not described. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'encounterId' and 'sessionId' or clarifying what 'active combat encounter' means in this context. Since the schema covers half the parameters adequately, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'sessionId'.

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: 'Get the current state of the active combat encounter.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('current state of the active combat encounter'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_turn_status' or 'get_strategy_state', which might provide related encounter information, so it doesn't reach the highest 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as requiring an active encounter, or compare it to siblings like 'get_turn_status' for turn-based details or 'get_strategy_state' for broader tactical context. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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