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's utility but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like (e.g., list of character objects), potential side effects, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and a brief usage hint. There is no wasted language, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's role.

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 query tool with parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters influence results, or behavioral traits. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about them. It doesn't explain what 'excludeEnemies' or 'sessionId' mean, their purposes, or how they affect the results. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters undocumented.

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 characters not assigned to any party.' It specifies the resource (characters) and the filtering condition (unassigned). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_characters' or 'get_character', which might also retrieve character data but with different scopes.

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 implied usage context with 'Useful for adding members,' suggesting this tool is for finding characters to add to parties. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_characters' or 'get_party_members', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is helpful but incomplete.

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