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 data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, or what happens if parameters are invalid. It mentions 'memoryLimit' but doesn't explain how memories are selected or formatted. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, output format, and usage guidelines. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at return values (e.g., structured data for prompts), but it doesn't, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.

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 75%, with three parameters well-described and one ('sessionId') lacking a description. The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'memoryLimit' affects output or the purpose of 'sessionId.' Since schema coverage is relatively high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't compensate for the gap in 'sessionId' documentation.

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 relationship + conversation history for LLM NPC dialogue prompts.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resources ('relationship + conversation history'), and indicates the target use case ('LLM NPC dialogue prompts'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_conversation_history' or 'get_npc_relationship', which appear to handle similar data components separately.

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 sibling tools like 'get_conversation_history' or 'get_npc_relationship', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate contexts beyond the generic 'LLM NPC dialogue prompts.' This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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