rpg-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include beyond schema/parameters. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a read-only tool with 2 parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks guidance, behavioral details, and parameter explanations that would help an agent use it effectively in context with many sibling tools.

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% (only 'name' parameter has a description). The tool description mentions 'template name' and 'full schema and parameters' as outputs, but doesn't clarify parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain the 'sessionId' parameter or provide additional context for 'name' (like format examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('workflow template'), specifying what information is retrieved ('details', 'full schema and parameters'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from similar sibling tools like 'get_character' or 'get_quest' beyond mentioning 'workflow template' as the specific resource type.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, related tools like 'list_templates' for discovery, or contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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