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. It discloses the key behavioral trait of being a preview-only, non-destructive operation. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or error handling, which would be helpful for a mutation-related tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key behavioral constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a preview tool. It covers the core purpose and non-destructive nature, but lacks details on what the preview output contains, error conditions, or dependencies. For a tool that simulates changes, more context on the preview format would be beneficial.

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 67% (two parameters have descriptions, one does not). The description does not add specific parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but it contextually explains that 'worldId' and 'script' are used for previewing a patch. With moderate schema coverage and no parameter info in the description, a baseline 3 is adjusted to 4 because the tool has only 3 parameters and the description implicitly clarifies their roles.

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 a specific verb ('previews') and resource ('DSL patch script'), and distinguishes it from its sibling 'apply_map_patch' by emphasizing it does not apply changes to the world. This provides immediate differentiation from a key alternative tool.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('previews what a DSL patch script would do without applying it') and implies when not to use it (use 'apply_map_patch' for actual application). This provides clear guidance on tool selection relative to its sibling.

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