razz-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention error conditions (what happens if not in a room), whether the action is reversible, or side effects on message history/read status.

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, efficient sentence of five words with no redundancy. It is immediately front-loaded with the action and object, making it easy to parse.

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, no output schema), the description is minimally viable. It adequately conveys the basic operation but lacks mention of prerequisites or edge case handling that would be necessary for robust agent operation.

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. Per evaluation rules, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to elaborate upon.

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 clearly states the action ('Leave') and resource ('current chat room'), distinguishing it from game-specific leave operations like 'razz_leave_hexwar_queue' by specifying 'chat room'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'razz_join_room' or clarify state requirements.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g., that the user must currently be in a chat room). It lacks 'when-not' or exclusion criteria.

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