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 explain what happens when a section is not found (error vs null return), whether title matching is case-sensitive, or what the return structure contains. It implies read-only behavior through the verb 'Get' but lacks explicit safety disclosure.

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?

At five words, the description is maximally concise and front-loaded, but it is underspecified for the complexity of the operation (nested object parameter, specific retrieval logic). The brevity results in insufficient information rather than efficient communication.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (section content, metadata, or object reference). It also omits error handling behavior and workflow context within the RFC document manipulation suite, leaving significant gaps for agent decision-making.

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 100%, with 'document' typed as RFCDocument and 'title' described as 'Section title'. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema (e.g., no explanation of the RFCDocument structure or title matching rules), warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 'Get a section by its title' is essentially a tautology that restates the function name (get_section_by_title → 'Get a section by its title'). While it identifies the verb (Get) and resource (section), it fails to distinguish this from siblings like list_sections (which retrieves all sections) or get_document, or clarify that it operates on RFC documents specifically.

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 provided on when to use this versus list_sections (for browsing) or get_document (for the full document). No mention of prerequisites, such as whether the document needs to be loaded first or if the title must be an exact match.

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