Encode a string with run-length encoding or decode RLE-encoded text to restore the original string.
Run-length encode or decode a string.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Input string to encode or RLE-encoded string to decode | |
| decode | No | If true, decode RLE input (default false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic operation but does not describe side effects, determinism, error handling, output format, or any other behavioral trait beyond what the name implies.
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 is a single well-formed sentence with zero waste, and the operation is front-loaded. For a simple utility tool, this is appropriately sized and structured.
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?
The tool is simple with a complete input schema and no output schema. The description covers the core operation but is minimal and does not specify the return type or format, leaving a small gap for an agent to infer the output of encode/decode.
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%, and the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the vague phrase 'or decode', so it does not enrich what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific operation (run-length encode or decode) on a specific resource (string), so the agent can understand what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as rle_encode_decode or runlength_process, which appear to serve similar purposes.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It only states the operation, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.