roll_check

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

Annotations provide no safety signal (all false). The description does not disclose how success/failure is computed, whether results include criticals, what hidden or bonus_dice do, or if there are side effects. It only shows input examples, leaving the actual behavior opaque.

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 succinct, starting with the core purpose and then providing four concrete examples that add value without redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to scan, though it could have added parameter details without becoming bloated.

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?

For a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers only a subset of use cases. It omits return value format, handling of hidden rolls, locale behavior, reason tagging, and advanced features like custom degrees, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With only 33% schema coverage, the description compensates partially by illustrating preset, target, dice, and advantage in examples. However, many parameters (mode, times, hidden, locale, reason, bonus_dice, degrees) lack explanatory context, and the description does not clarify how they interact.

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 that the tool performs 'skill/attribute checks' and supports multiple rule presets and custom success levels. The examples (CoC 7e, D&D 5e, PbtA, advantage) leave no ambiguity about its purpose, distinguishing it from generic dice rollers like 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 for tabletop RPG checks, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like roll_dice, roll_pool, or opposed_check. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative conditions, so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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