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 what the tool creates (POI, room network, NPCs) and the token savings benefit. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or mutation impacts (e.g., overwriting existing locations), which are important for a creation tool. It adds good context but misses some behavioral traits.

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 with sections like 'TOKEN SAVINGS', 'WHAT THIS TOOL DOES', and examples, making it front-loaded and easy to scan. However, the preset list is somewhat lengthy, and some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the examples are detailed but necessary). It's efficient but has minor verbosity.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and examples, but lacks details on return values or error conditions. With no output schema, it should ideally mention what is returned (e.g., location ID), leaving a small gap in 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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 88% coverage. It explains parameter usage through examples (e.g., 'preset' values like 'generic_tavern', 'spawnNpcs' for NPC spawning, 'customName' overrides) and lists available presets, clarifying semantics that the schema alone does not fully convey, compensating for any gaps.

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 with specific verbs and resources: 'Spawn a complete location from a preset. Creates POI, room network, and optionally NPCs.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'spawn_populated_location' by emphasizing preset-based creation with token savings, and from 'generate_room_node' by handling complete location setup.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for spawning preset locations with efficiency (85% token savings). It implies alternatives like manual specification or other spawn tools but does not explicitly name when-not-to-use scenarios or direct sibling comparisons, keeping it at a 4.

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