rfc-server

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 states the tool fetches an RFC, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify potential behaviors like error handling for invalid numbers, response format details, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits like error handling, and output expectations, making it insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional context or trial-and-error.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions fetching 'by its number', which aligns with the 'number' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'format' parameter at all. This fails to add meaningful semantics beyond what little is implied, leaving half the parameters unexplained.

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 ('fetch') and resource ('RFC document by its number'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_rfc_section' or 'search_rfcs', but the specificity of fetching by number provides some implicit distinction.

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 like 'get_rfc_section' or 'search_rfcs'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the RFC number must be valid or in a specific format, and offers no explicit when-not-to-use advice.

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