add_random_integer_in_range_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it is ambiguous: 'Returns a random integer between Min and Max' could be misread as the tool's own return value rather than the node's output when executed. It also fails to mention side effects on the blueprint graph, prerequisites (e.g., blueprint existence), or error handling, leaving important gaps for a mutation-like operation.

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 well-structured with a clear lead, usage context, argument list, KB reference, and example. It is front-loaded with the purpose and does not waste words, though it could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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?

The tool has a moderate complexity as a node-adding operation. The description provides an example and a KB reference, but the ambiguous return statement and lack of details on graph integration or prerequisites make it incomplete for an agent to fully predict behavior. Since an output schema exists, not explaining return values is acceptable, but the contradictory 'Returns a random integer' line undermines completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides succinct meanings for all four parameters (blueprint_name, min_value, max_value, node_position) and notes node_position is optional, adding value beyond the bare schema. It could mention constraints like min<=max or inclusivity explicitly, but the essentials are covered.

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 adds a 'Random Integer In Range' node and specifies that the node returns a random integer between Min and Max inclusive. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes itself from sibling node-adding tools like add_random_float_in_range_node by focusing on the integer variant.

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 concrete usage context by mentioning chapters 13 and 18 for dice roll and random spawning scenarios, giving an agent a sense of when to apply it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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