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 effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it creates a full combat encounter (implying a write/mutation operation), mentions token savings (~90%), and provides detailed examples of input formats (e.g., position shorthand). However, it doesn't explicitly state permissions, error conditions, or side effects like session initialization needs.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by key benefits (REPLACES, TOKEN SAVINGS), then examples and details. Every sentence adds value, though the long list of creature templates at the end could be slightly trimmed for better flow.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects) and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters with examples, and available options. The main gap is the lack of explicit mention of required permissions or error handling, but the example and template list provide strong contextual support.

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 high (86%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains position shorthand ('"10,5" instead of {x:10, y:5, z:0}'), provides a full example with all major parameters, and lists available creature templates (which aren't in the schema as enums). This compensates well for the 14% schema 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: 'Create a full combat encounter with creatures from presets and terrain patterns.' It specifies the verb ('create'), resource ('full combat encounter'), and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly mentioning it replaces 'create_encounter + N×create_character + N×update_terrain'.

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 explicit usage guidelines: it states when to use this tool ('REPLACES: create_encounter + N×create_character + N×update_terrain') and includes a concrete example ('Example - Goblin Ambush:'). It also lists available creature templates, helping users understand what's possible.

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