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 it 'gets information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted content, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (a read operation with two parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, how to interpret parameters, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for effective tool use in this 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, with two parameters (npcId and sessionId) undocumented. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what npcId refers to (e.g., a unique identifier for a fence NPC) or when sessionId is required. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters unclear.

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 states the tool's purpose ('Get information about a fence NPC'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the resource (fence NPC) and verb (get information), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_npc_context' or 'list_fences', nor does it clarify what type of information is retrieved. This meets the minimum viable threshold.

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. With siblings like 'get_npc_context', 'list_fences', and 'get_character', there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate, such as for detailed vs. summary data or specific NPC types. This lack of context leaves usage unclear.

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