roll_fate

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

With all annotations set to false, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 4dF, modifier, and ladder evaluation, but does not disclose side effects, whether the roll is random, if it affects game state, or what the return format is. This is minimal transparency for an action that could have non-deterministic behavior.

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 very concise: one line plus a usage example. It is front-loaded and every word adds value. However, it is slightly under-specified, leaving key aspects unexplained, so it loses one point for efficiency over completeness.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (beyond 'ladder evaluation'), how hidden/tags/locale/reason affect behavior, or what outputs the caller can expect. This is inadequate for an agent to use it confidently.

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 17% (only difficulty has a description). The description's example and text clarify 'modifier' and 'difficulty' roles, but parameters like tags, hidden, locale, and reason remain undocumented in both schema and description. This is insufficient compensation 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 it is FATE-system-specific: 'FATE 系统专用：4dF + 修正值，带梯形评价' (FATE system exclusive: 4dF + modifier, with ladder evaluation). This specifies the verb (roll), the resource (FATE dice), and distinguishes it from siblings like roll_dice or roll_check that are likely more generic.

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 gives some context by declaring it as FATE-system exclusive, implying use for FATE rolls. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like roll_check or roll_pool, nor state when not to use it. The example 'roll_fate modifier=3 difficulty=2' demonstrates usage but lacks exclusion guidance.

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