rfc-server

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 only states the action without any details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the return value looks like (e.g., text format, metadata). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects, parameter details, or return values, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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 0%, meaning parameters 'number' and 'section' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the tool name, failing to explain what these parameters represent (e.g., RFC number format, section identifier syntax) or how they should be used.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'a specific section from an RFC', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_rfc' (which might fetch the entire RFC) or 'search_rfcs' (which might search across multiple RFCs), preventing a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_rfc' or 'search_rfcs'. The description implies usage for retrieving sections but offers no explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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