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 adds valuable precondition constraints but lacks information about return values, error states when called while not queued, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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 consists of two highly efficient sentences: one stating the action and one stating the critical constraint. There is no redundant or wasted text, with key information front-loaded.

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 (single required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential operational constraints. However, it could be enhanced by briefly noting the expected outcome or error behavior given the lack of annotations.

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 for the single 'room_id' parameter. The description does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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 ('Leave') and resource ('HexWar queue') to clearly define the operation. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'razz_leave_room' (exiting active matches) and 'razz_cancel_queue' (generic cancellation) by explicitly scoping to the HexWar queue.

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 provides explicit preconditions ('Only works if you are queued') and exclusion criteria ('not if already playing in a live match'), offering clear guidance on when to invoke the tool. It stops short of naming explicit alternative tools for the excluded states.

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