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 implies a write operation ('submit'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or how errors are handled. The mention of 'batched' hints at bulk processing, but lacks details on limits or constraints.

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 very concise with just one phrase, which is appropriately sized. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative, lacking necessary details for a tool with 4 parameters and complex nested objects in 'actions'.

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 (4 parameters, nested 'actions' array with multiple properties, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's role in a turn-based system, what 'actions' are valid, or the expected outcome, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 doesn't explain any parameters, leaving 'worldId', 'nationId', 'actions', and 'sessionId' undocumented. The description mentions 'actions' but doesn't clarify their structure or the 'batched' nature, failing to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 'Submit actions for this turn (batched)' states a verb ('submit') and resource ('actions'), but is vague about what 'actions' entail or what 'this turn' refers to. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'advance_turn' or 'resolve_turn', leaving the specific purpose unclear.

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. The description mentions 'this turn' and 'batched', but doesn't explain prerequisites, timing, or what happens after submission. Without context, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage.

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