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 provides none. It does not specify the return format (structured object vs. text), whether the TOC is returned as a hierarchy, or error conditions (e.g., if the document lacks a TOC). The read-only nature is implied but not confirmed.

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?

While the four-word description contains no extraneous text, it is insufficiently informative rather than efficiently concise. It fails the 'every sentence should earn its place' standard because it provides no actionable detail beyond the tool name itself.

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 complex domain (RFC documents) and rich sibling tool ecosystem, the description is inadequate. With no output schema provided, the description should explain the return structure, yet it omits this. The nested object parameter 'document' requires explanation that is absent.

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% description coverage (the 'document' parameter is typed as 'RFCDocument'), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional semantic context about what constitutes an RFCDocument (e.g., whether it's an identifier, path, or object reference) or how to construct it.

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 the table of contents' is tautological—merely expanding the acronym 'TOC' from the tool name without adding specificity. It fails to distinguish this from siblings like 'get_document' (which might contain the TOC) or 'list_sections' (which might return similar structural data).

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 tool versus alternatives such as 'list_sections' or 'get_document'. Given the numerous sibling tools for RFC manipulation (including 'set_toc'), the description omits critical context about when retrieval versus mutation is appropriate.

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