random_int

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool generates a random integer within an inclusive range, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it lacks details on randomness quality (e.g., pseudorandom vs. cryptographic), distribution (uniform), side effects, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., if min_val > max_val). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 front-loads the core functionality ('Generate a random integer...') and includes essential details (range, inclusiveness) without waste. The parenthetical domain/category note is brief and relevant. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters.

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 low complexity (two integer parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic operation and parameter roles but lacks depth in behavioral transparency and usage guidelines. For a random number generator, additional context on randomness properties or error cases would enhance completeness, but it's adequate for the simple schema.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining that min_val and max_val define an inclusive range for the random integer. However, it doesn't specify constraints (e.g., valid integer ranges, handling of negative values, or what happens if min_val equals max_val). It compensates partially but not fully for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Generate') and resource ('a random integer') with specific boundaries ('between min_val and max_val (inclusive)'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the random integer generation domain, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other random tools (like random_float or random_array) that might exist in the sibling list. The purpose is unambiguous but could be more distinct regarding sibling tools.

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 mentions a domain ('arithmetic') and category ('general'), but this is too vague to inform selection among the many arithmetic/general sibling tools (e.g., random_float, uniform_sample). There are no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives, leaving the agent without practical usage context.

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