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. While it mentions applying proficiency bonus, it doesn't describe the actual rolling mechanics (e.g., d20 roll plus modifiers), doesn't specify what the output looks like (success/failure, total roll), and doesn't mention any side effects or constraints. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise - just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key behavior. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with no 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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 43% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the rolling mechanics, output format, parameter interactions (e.g., how advantage/disadvantage work together), or provide usage context. The conciseness comes at the expense of completeness.

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 only 43%, meaning most parameters lack documentation in the schema. The description mentions 'character' and 'save proficiency' which relates to characterId and ability parameters, but doesn't explain the other 5 parameters (advantage, disadvantage, dc, bonusModifier, sessionId). The description adds minimal value beyond what the sparse schema provides.

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 action ('Roll a saving throw') and specifies that it applies proficiency bonus if the character has save proficiency. It distinguishes from generic dice rolling tools like 'dice_roll' by focusing on saving throws specifically, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar ability/check tools like 'roll_ability_check' or 'roll_skill_check'.

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. There are several related rolling tools in the sibling list (roll_ability_check, roll_skill_check, roll_death_save, check_concentration_save), but the description doesn't indicate when this specific saving throw tool is appropriate versus those other options.

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