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 this is a read operation ('Returns'), but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or how it handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple read operation and front-loads the key information ('Returns a high-level overview'). Every word earns its place.

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 apparent simplicity (read-only, 2 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool returns but doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter usage, or differentiation from siblings. The lack of annotations and output schema means the description should do more to compensate, but it only meets basic requirements.

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 'worldId' has a description). The tool description doesn't mention any parameters, so it adds no semantic value beyond what the schema provides. With 2 parameters and partial schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema does some work, but the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'sessionId' parameter.

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 a high-level overview of the world including biome distribution and statistics.' It specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('world'), and scope ('high-level overview'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_world' or 'get_world_state', which might provide different types of world information.

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 like 'get_world', 'get_world_state', and 'get_world_tiles', there's no indication of how this tool's 'high-level overview' differs from those, nor any prerequisites or context for its use. This leaves the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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