mcp-rfc-editor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It successfully discloses the session context dependency (stateful behavior), but omits error handling (what happens if no active document exists), return structure, or side effects.

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, nine words. Front-loaded with action verb and fully qualifies the resource. No redundant or wasted language given the tool's simplicity.

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 zero-parameter retrieval tool, but given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should ideally disclose error states (no active document) or indicate what object structure is returned to ensure safe agent usage.

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?

Zero parameters present per input schema (empty object), establishing baseline 4 per scoring rules. No parameter documentation needed or provided.

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?

Clear verb ('Get') and resource ('current active RFC document') with scope ('from session context'). Implicitly distinguishes from load_rfc by emphasizing 'active' session state rather than loading a specific RFC, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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 implied usage through 'session context' (suggesting stateful workflow with load_rfc), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus load_rfc or prerequisites like 'only works after load_rfc has been called'.

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