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 and successfully discloses critical behavioral traits: the return value ('updated grid state'), success mechanics (gem increases multiplier), and failure mechanics (mine ends game with loss). It could improve by mentioning edge cases like 'invalid if game already ended'.

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 efficiently structured with zero waste: action definition (sentence 1), return value (sentence 2), game mechanics (sentences 3-4), and coordinate constraints (sentence 5). Every sentence provides essential information for tool invocation.

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 lack of output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return value ('updated grid state') and explaining the game state transitions. It sufficiently covers the 2-parameter input schema, though it could explicitly mention the prerequisite of calling razz_play_mines first rather than just implying it with 'active'.

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 ('Row to reveal...', 'Column to reveal...'), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds a 'Coordinates:' prefix that groups the parameters conceptually but largely duplicates the coordinate constraints (0-4, directions) already present in the schema without adding new validation details or usage examples.

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 specific action ('Reveal a cell') and resource ('active Mines game'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like razz_play_mines (game initialization) and razz_mines_cashout (game termination) by specifying this operates on an already 'active' game.

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 phrase 'in an active Mines game' establishes a clear prerequisite (game must be started first), and describing the win/loss conditions (gem vs mine) implicitly guides risk assessment. However, it does not explicitly name razz_mines_cashout as the alternative action to stop playing.

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