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. It discloses the output format (text-based grid with specific symbols) and includes an example, which helps understand behavior. However, it doesn't mention side effects (e.g., if this modifies state), performance considerations, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by details on the output format and an example. It's appropriately sized with no redundant sentences. However, the example is formatted as JSON, which might confuse the agent about input vs. output, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 partially compensates by detailing the visual output format. However, for a tool with 5 parameters and complex behavior (rendering a combat map), it lacks information on error handling, state changes, or integration with other tools like 'get_encounter_state', making it incomplete for full contextual 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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it implies 'encounterId' is required by including it in the example, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or semantics. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Render an ASCII map of the current combat state showing participant positions, obstacles, and terrain.' It specifies the exact resource (combat state) and output format (ASCII map), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_region_map' or 'get_world_map_overview' by focusing on tactical combat visualization.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active encounter), differentiate from similar tools like 'preview_map_patch', or specify scenarios where rendering a map is appropriate. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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