rpg-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'hearing range, stealth vs perception, and memory recording', which hints at behavioral traits like spatial constraints and persistence. However, it doesn't disclose critical details: whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or what the output looks like. For a 6-parameter tool with no annotations, 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 brief and front-loaded with key concepts. It uses a single sentence efficiently, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from mechanics). No wasted words, but slightly dense.

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 complexity (social interaction with spatial mechanics), no annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters, the description is incomplete. It hints at mechanics but lacks details on behavior, output, error handling, or integration with siblings. Should provide more context for effective use.

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 83% (high), so the baseline is 3 even without parameter info in the description. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, which already documents parameters like speakerId, targetId, content, volume, intent, and sessionId. No additional context or examples are provided.

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 tool handles 'social interaction with spatial awareness', which gives a vague purpose. It mentions specific mechanics like 'hearing range, stealth vs perception, and memory recording', but doesn't clearly state what the tool actually does (e.g., initiate conversation, process social actions). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'record_conversation_memory' or 'get_conversation_history'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions mechanics but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'record_conversation_memory' exist, but no comparison is provided.

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