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 mentions the tool 'returns detailed information,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., format, pagination). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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. It avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the parameters or usage context, but it's appropriately concise for its purpose.

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 tool retrieving detailed region data with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, how results are formatted, or any prerequisites (e.g., session requirements). For a tool in a rich sibling set with no structured support, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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% (2 out of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain the meaning of 'regionId' or 'worldId' in context, nor does it clarify the optional 'sessionId'. With moderate schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate for gaps, resulting in a baseline score.

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: 'Returns detailed information about a specific region including its tiles and structures.' It specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('region'), and scope ('tiles and structures'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_world_map_overview' or 'get_world_tiles' that might provide similar map-related data, preventing a perfect 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. With many sibling tools related to maps and regions (e.g., 'get_world_map_overview', 'get_world_tiles', 'get_parties_in_region'), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over others. It only states what it does, not when to use it.

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