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 mentions 'process a full turn cycle' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only or mutative, what side effects occur, permissions needed, or response format. This leaves critical gaps for a tool that likely performs significant game-state changes.

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 no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple statement, though it could be more front-loaded with critical details.

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 implied by 'full turn cycle', lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain parameters like 'worldId', 'turnNumber', or 'sessionId'. With 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a significant shortfall.

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 'Process a full turn cycle (economy, conflicts, etc.)' states a vague purpose with a verb ('process') and resource ('turn cycle'), but lacks specificity about what 'process' entails or what domains are involved beyond the parenthetical examples. It doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like 'advance_turn' or 'submit_turn_actions', leaving ambiguity about its unique role.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'advance_turn' and 'submit_turn_actions', the description fails to indicate prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, offering no help in tool selection.

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