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. The description explains this is a batch operation that creates multiple entities at once, which adds useful context beyond just 'initialize'. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this operation is idempotent, what happens if sessionId is provided, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. For a complex creation tool with no annotations, this leaves significant 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 perfectly structured with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides critical usage guidance, and the example illustrates parameter usage. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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 complexity (6 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. While it explains the batch nature and provides a helpful example, it doesn't cover all parameters, doesn't describe the return value or possible errors, and doesn't address important behavioral aspects like idempotency or permissions. For a tool that creates multiple game entities at once, more context would be helpful.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 6 parameters, the description must compensate. The example provides concrete semantic meaning for worldName, partyName, characters array structure, and startingLocation object, which covers 4 of the 6 parameters. However, it doesn't explain worldSeed or sessionId parameters at all. The example adds substantial value but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 with specific verbs ('Initialize a new game session') and resources ('with world, party, and starting location'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its siblings by listing the exact operations it replaces ('create_world + create_party + N×create_character + move_party'), making it distinct from individual creation tools in the sibling list.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives by stating it 'REPLACES: create_world + create_party + N×create_character + move_party (6-10 calls → 1 call)'. This clearly indicates this is a batch initialization tool that should be used instead of making multiple separate calls, with no misleading or missing context.

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