rpg-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: polling unread events, returning them, and marking them as consumed. It adds context about event sources (NPCs, combat, world systems) and their purpose (autonomous feel). However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or side effects beyond consumption.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose. The following sentences add useful context and an example, but the example could be more concise. Overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity and maintains focus.

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 (event polling with consumption), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description does a good job explaining what the tool does and why. It provides an example response format, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it could improve by addressing parameters or error cases.

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 'limit' has a description). The description does not mention parameters at all, failing to compensate for the low coverage. However, with only 2 parameters and one documented in the schema, the baseline is 3 as the schema provides some clarity, but the description adds no value beyond it.

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 ('poll', 'returns', 'marks as consumed') and identifies the resource ('event inbox for unread events'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on event polling, unlike other tools that handle NPCs, combat, or world systems directly.

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 implies usage context by explaining events are generated 'while the player wasn't looking' and represent autonomous NPC actions, combat, etc. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_event_history' or 'subscribe_to_events', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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