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. It effectively describes key behaviors: it creates encounters (implying a write/mutation operation), lists available presets and difficulties, and hints at scaling based on party parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly mention permissions, side effects (e.g., if it modifies existing encounters), or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement. Every sentence adds value: it explains the tool's advantage (token savings), provides practical examples, and lists available options without redundancy. The use of bullet points for presets and difficulties enhances readability, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description does a good job of providing context. It covers purpose, usage, examples, and available options, which helps compensate for the lack of output schema. However, it doesn't detail the return format or potential errors, leaving some gaps in completeness for a tool with many parameters and no structured output information.

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?

The input schema has high description coverage (91%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by providing concrete examples (e.g., 'goblin_ambush', 'orc_warband') and clarifying parameter interactions (e.g., 'partyLevel' defaults to 'level' if set). It also lists available presets and difficulties, which helps interpret the 'preset' and 'difficulty' parameters, though it doesn't fully document all 11 parameters.

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 complete combat encounter from a preset with a single call.' It specifies the verb ('create'), resource ('combat encounter'), and scope ('from a preset'), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'setup_tactical_encounter' by noting it replaces manual specification with preset-based automation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it states it 'REPLACES: setup_tactical_encounter with manual participant/terrain specification' and highlights token savings. It also includes multiple examples (e.g., 'Goblin Ambush', 'Scaled for large party', 'Random encounter') that illustrate different usage scenarios, making it clear when and how to apply the tool.

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