opposed_check

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

The description discloses the core comparison behavior (margin/total/success) and example parameters, but it does not mention side effects like random generation, roll history, or hidden-roll behaviors. With annotations all false, the description carries the burden but only partially covers it.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by two useful examples. The structure is clear and each sentence earns its place, though the examples take some space.

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 high complexity (13 params, 4 enums) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover many parameters, does not explain return values, and lacks discussion of edge cases (e.g., ties). The examples help but are insufficient for a full understanding.

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 coverage is only 15% (only actor1/actor2 have basic descriptions). The description's examples add meaning for preset, target, dice, mode, and actor modifiers, but many parameters (resolution, degrees, times, hidden, locale, reason) remain unexplained. It compensates partially but not fully.

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 performs an opposed check ('双方对抗检定') and compares two characters' margin/total/success to determine a winner. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like roll_check or roll_dice.

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 examples imply usage contexts (CoC, D&D initiative) but do not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of 'use this when' or 'don't use for single checks'.

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