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 the tool loads an encounter but does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what data is returned, potential errors (e.g., if the encounter doesn't exist), or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's 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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose without redundancy or fluff, making it easy 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 complexity of a tool that loads data (likely with structured output), the lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'loading' entails, the format of the returned data, or error conditions, leaving the AI agent with critical gaps in understanding.

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 'encounterId' has a description). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. With two parameters and partial schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 reflects that the description does not compensate for the undocumented 'sessionId' parameter.

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 action ('Load') and resource ('a combat encounter from the database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'get_encounter_state' or 'create_encounter', which would require more specific scope or context.

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. With many sibling tools related to encounters (e.g., 'create_encounter', 'end_encounter', 'get_encounter_state'), there is no indication of prerequisites, typical use cases, or distinctions from similar tools.

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