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 behavioral traits: the scroll is consumed after use (even on failure), and the Arcana check requirement depends on class list and casting level. This covers important mutation and conditional execution aspects that aren't in the schema.

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 perfectly concise with two information-dense sentences. The first sentence states the core action and key behavioral constraint (consumption). The second sentence provides crucial conditional logic. Every word serves a clear purpose with zero waste.

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 does well by covering consumption behavior and conditional execution rules. However, it doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, potential side effects, or return values, leaving some gaps in operational understanding.

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 schema description coverage is 80%, providing a solid baseline. The description doesn't add specific parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but it does provide context about how scroll usage works that informs parameter usage (e.g., characterId matters for class/level checks, scrollItemId identifies the consumable).

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 specific action ('use a spell scroll from inventory') and resource ('spell scroll'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'use_item' by specifying the scroll type and consumption behavior. It provides precise operational details that differentiate it from generic item usage.

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 the tool (consuming scrolls from inventory) and includes important usage rules (scroll consumption regardless of check outcome, no check required under certain class/level conditions). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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