razz-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and successfully discloses key behavioral traits: statefulness (requires active game), win/lose conditions, side effects (game ends on trap, multiplier increases on success), and destructive potential (losing). It could be improved by mentioning idempotency or specific error states.

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 well-structured sentences with zero waste: the first establishes the action and context, the second explains the binary outcome mechanics. Every word earns its place.

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 single parameter with complete schema coverage and lack of output schema, the description successfully explains the game mechanics, prerequisites, and consequences. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the risk/reward tradeoff, though mentioning the cashout alternative would make it fully complete.

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% ('Door index to pick (0 to difficulty-1)'), so the baseline is 3. The description aligns with the schema ('Pick a door') but does not add additional semantic context about the door parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Pick a door'), the resource ('current floor'), and the context ('active Tower game'). The mention of 'active Tower game' effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like razz_play_tower (which likely initializes the game) and razz_tower_cashout.

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?

It establishes clear prerequisites ('active Tower game') and explains risk/reward consequences (safe advance vs. trap loss), which guides decision-making. However, it does not explicitly reference the sibling razz_tower_cashout as an alternative action when the user wants to secure winnings rather than risk continuing.

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