rpg-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the mechanics (DC calculation and auto-success), it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like whether this consumes resources, requires specific character permissions, affects game state, or what happens on failure. For a tool with potential game impact and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 with zero wasted words. It's a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently explains both identification methods. Every element earns its place by providing essential context for tool selection and parameter understanding.

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 (identification with two methods), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context but lacks completeness. It explains the identification mechanics well but doesn't cover behavioral consequences, failure outcomes, or return values, leaving gaps that could hinder effective agent usage.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the 75% schema coverage. While the schema describes parameters like 'characterId' and 'scrollItemId', the description explains that identification involves either an Arcana check (DC 10 + spell level) or the Identify spell, which helps interpret the 'useIdentifySpell' boolean parameter. This compensates well for the schema's partial 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 specific action ('identify a spell scroll') and the two methods available (Arcana check with DC formula or Identify spell with auto-success). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'check_scroll_usability' or 'get_scroll_details' by focusing on the identification process rather than usability checks or information retrieval.

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 implicitly provides usage context by explaining the two identification methods (Arcana check vs. Identify spell), which helps an agent decide when to use each approach. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'check_item_recognition' or mention prerequisites such as character proximity to the scroll.

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