rpg-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool removes the item from inventory and applies effects, which covers basic behavior. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether effects are reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid target), or rate limits, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action and effects. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action but lacks critical context like return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances (e.g., cooldowns, validation rules), which are essential for safe and effective use.

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 75%, with three parameters documented (characterId, itemId, targetId) and one undocumented (sessionId). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining 'targetId' usage or 'sessionId' purpose, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('use') and resource ('consumable item'), specifying that it removes the item from inventory and applies effects. It distinguishes from siblings like 'equip_item' or 'give_item' by focusing on consumption, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 (e.g., 'equip_item' for equipment, 'give_item' for transfers, or 'use_spell_scroll' for scrolls). The description implies usage for consumables but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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