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 initialization and a one-time call, but doesn't explain what 'turn management' involves, whether it's idempotent, what permissions are needed, or what happens if called multiple times. For a tool with no annotations, 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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main action and includes a brief usage note, making it appropriately concise and well-structured for its purpose.

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 of a tool that initializes turn management, with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool returns, error conditions, or detailed behavior, making it inadequate for the agent to use effectively without additional context.

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 parameters. It doesn't explain what 'worldId' or 'sessionId' represent, their formats, or how they relate to the initialization. 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 states the action ('Initialize turn management') and resource ('for a world'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'turn management' entails and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'advance_turn' or 'get_turn_status', which are related to turn operations. The phrase 'call once per world' adds some scope but doesn't fully clarify the tool's unique role.

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 includes 'call once per world', which implies a one-time initialization per world, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'initialize_session' or other turn-related tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or clear context for usage are mentioned, leaving the agent with minimal guidance.

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