mcp-rfc-editor

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 but fails to specify idempotency, return format (string vs object), error handling when copyright is missing, or side effects. The word 'Get' implies read-only access but lacks explicit confirmation.

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 consists of a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without redundancy. However, given the absence of annotations and output schema, the extreme brevity leaves critical information unstated.

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?

While the description covers the basic purpose for this low-complexity tool (single parameter, simple getter), it lacks return value documentation necessary due to the missing output schema. It is adequate but has clear gaps regarding the response format.

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 input schema has 100% coverage describing the 'document' parameter as an RFCDocument object. The description adds no supplemental information about parameter semantics, syntax, or validation rules, meriting the baseline score for well-documented schemas.

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 (Get), the target resource (copyright notice), and the context (RFC document). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_abstract or set_copyright through specific noun selection.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_document (which likely returns the full document including copyright) or versus set_copyright. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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