pick_random

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

The description discloses the algorithm (Fisher-Yates shuffle) and cryptographic randomness, which adds behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations that only set all hints to false. It does not mention potential side effects or state changes, but since this is a pure selection tool, that omission is minor.

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 remarkably concise: one sentence describing the core behavior plus two illustrative examples. Every word earns its place, and the examples are compact and immediately informative.

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 core functionality is well-covered with examples, and the algorithm note is useful. However, with 7 parameters, no output schema, and several optional parameters (hidden, tags, locale, reason) undocumented, the description is not fully complete for advanced or edge-case use.

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 only 43%, and the description only illustrates items, count, and unique via examples. The parameters tags, hidden, locale, and reason are left unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 '从列表中随机抽取' (randomly draw from a list), and the examples with initiative order and card draws make the resource and action unambiguous. This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like roll_dice or roll_table, which are for other random generation tasks.

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 clear usage scenarios (shuffling initiative order, drawing cards) and the description notes the no-replacement behavior via the example. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives like roll_table.

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