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 states the tool calculates trajectory, implying a read-only computation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's deterministic, has side effects, requires specific units, or handles errors. For a calculation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or any constraints, leaving significant gaps for a calculation tool with multiple inputs and options.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 6 parameters. It mentions 'projectile motion' which hints at parameters like velocity and angle, but doesn't explain any parameters explicitly (e.g., what 'exportFormat' does, what 'sessionId' is for, or units for inputs). This fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 'Calculate projectile motion trajectory' clearly states the verb ('calculate') and resource ('projectile motion trajectory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculate_aoe' or 'measure_distance' that might involve similar calculations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., physics simulations vs. game mechanics), or comparison to sibling tools like 'probability_calculate' or 'algebra_solve' that might handle related calculations.

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