rfcxml-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 states the tool 'Get term definitions from RFC,' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: 'Get term definitions from RFC.' It's a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or fluff. Every part of the sentence earns its place, making it efficient and 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 complexity of the tool (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, usage context, and what to expect in return, which are crucial for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to compensate, but it doesn't.

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, with clear parameter descriptions: 'RFC number' and 'Search for specific term.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it doesn't explain parameter usage, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, reflecting adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.

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's purpose: 'Get term definitions from RFC.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('term definitions from RFC'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_related_sections' or 'get_rfc_structure', which might also retrieve RFC content, so it doesn't achieve full sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention any context, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_related_sections' or 'get_requirements', leaving the agent without usage instructions. This lack of guidance makes it harder to select the correct tool in a set of similar options.

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