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 indicates this is a read operation ('Get', 'shows') but fails to clarify what constitutes 'current state' (connection status? game state? wallet state?) or disclose caching behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limiting.

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 efficient sentences with zero waste. The primary purpose (identity and state) appears first, followed by the secondary feature (notification count), appropriately front-loading critical information.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool without output schema, the description minimally specifies the three return components (identity, state, notification count). However, the term 'current state' remains ambiguous, and without structured return type documentation, the description should ideally enumerate what fields comprise the identity and state objects.

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 (empty object), establishing baseline 4 per evaluation rules. No parameter description is necessary or present, and the 100% schema coverage (trivially satisfied) requires no additional semantic elaboration in the description text.

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 tool retrieves 'this agent's identity and current state' plus 'pending notification count' using specific verbs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'razz_get_profile' (likely public profile data) or 'razz_check_notifications' (likely full notification list), though the scope overlap is somewhat implied by the combined output.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'razz_get_profile' for user data or 'razz_check_notifications' for detailed notification lists. It does not specify prerequisites or conditions where this combined identity+state+count query is preferred over discrete operations.

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