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'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover other critical aspects like permissions, rate limits, response format, or pagination. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 perfectly concise and front-loaded: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds valuable detail about included data. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and what data it includes, but lacks details on behavior, parameters, and output structure. Without annotations or an output schema, more context would be helpful, but it meets the bare minimum for a read operation.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's implied by the tool's purpose. It doesn't explain 'sessionId' or provide context for 'worldId' beyond the schema's basic description. With partial schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately, 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 the full tile grid for rendering the world map' specifies the verb (returns) and resource (tile grid). It adds detail about included data (biome, elevation, region, river) for visualization. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_world_map_overview' or 'get_region_map', which prevents 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_world_map_overview' or 'get_region_map', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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