razz-mcp

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. It effectively describes the return data structure (phase, timing, queue status, next match times) but omits safety declarations (read-only status), authentication requirements, rate limits, or cache behavior. The verb 'List' implies read-only access, but explicit confirmation is absent.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first declares functionality and data scope, the second provides usage intent. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place. No redundancy with the tool name or schema.

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 tool's low complexity (zero parameters, simple list operation) and absence of an output schema, the description adequately compensates by detailing the returned fields. It sufficiently equips an agent to invoke the tool and interpret results, though explicit mention of real-time vs cached data would improve it further.

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 contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description correctly focuses on return value semantics rather than inventing parameter documentation, which is appropriate for this endpoint.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a specific resource ('HexWar rooms') and enumerates key attributes returned (current phase, timing, queue status, next match times). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like razz_get_hexwar_results (past results vs current rooms) and razz_join_hexwar_queue (action vs discovery) by focusing on informational listing.

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 explicit positive guidance ('Use this to find rooms with upcoming matches or check when to queue'), clearly signaling the tool's discovery purpose. While it implies the distinction from queue action tools, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state negative constraints (e.g., 'do not use this to join a queue').

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