rpg-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Returns all effects that were triggered', which hints at read-only output, but doesn't clarify if it's a read operation, mutation, or has side effects like modifying game state. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, making behavioral traits insufficiently transparent.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes a return value note. It avoids redundancy and waste, though it could be slightly more structured with separate usage or parameter hints to improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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, no output schema, and 75% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format beyond 'all effects that were triggered', leaving output semantics vague. For a tool with 4 parameters and potential game-state implications, more context on behavior, errors, and output structure is needed to be fully helpful.

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 75%, with three parameters well-described and one ('sessionId') lacking a description. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'target' and 'trigger' examples but not explaining parameter interactions or semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does most of the work, but the description doesn't compensate for the 25% coverage gap.

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: 'Process aura effects for a target at a specific trigger' with the verb 'process' and resource 'aura effects'. It specifies the action and resource but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'process_effect_triggers' or 'get_auras_affecting_character', which prevents a perfect 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. It mentions triggers like 'start of turn, entering an aura' but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'process_effect_triggers' or 'get_auras_affecting_character', leaving usage context unclear.

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