roll_table

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

Annotations are all false and provide no safety profile. The description discloses no side effects, such as whether rolls are recorded in history or how hidden rolls behave, despite the presence of a 'hidden' parameter. 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise examples that illustrate each mode. The examples are valuable and not wasteful, though they make the description longer than strictly necessary.

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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description leaves many parameters undocumented and does not describe the return format or how nested triggers affect output. It covers core behavior, but the tool's complexity demands more complete guidance.

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?

The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema by explaining the options structure (label, min/max, weight, trigger_roll) and dice usage across three modes. This compensates for the low schema coverage, though secondary parameters like tags, times, locale, and reason remain unexplained.

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 draws results from a random table and details three mutually exclusive modes (range, weight, equal probability) plus nested triggers. This specific verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling roll tools like roll_dice or roll_check.

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 implies usage for random table rolling through examples and the term 'random table', but it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives or provides when-not-to-use guidance. No exclusions are stated, so the guidance is only implicit.

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