mcp-rfc-editor

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose return format (list, string, object?), whether the operation is read-only, or side effects. Fails to explain what happens if the document lacks contributors or is invalid.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and resource. Appropriate length for a simple getter tool.

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?

Adequate for a single-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, but lacks return value description (critical given no output schema exists). Does not address the distinction between contributors and authors despite both concepts existing in the sibling tool set.

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 coverage is 100% with the parameter described as 'RFCDocument'. The description mentions 'an RFC document' but adds no further semantics about the expected structure, required fields, or identifier format for the document object.

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?

Uses specific verb 'Get' and identifies resource 'contributors' of an RFC document. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like get_authors or set_contributors, nor clarify what differentiates contributors from authors in this context.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_contributors, or prerequisites for the document parameter. No mention of error conditions or when contributors might be empty.

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