random_integer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the inclusive bounds, but does not mention edge cases such as behavior when min > max, whether bounds must be integers, or the distribution. This is a gap for a simple but potentially ambiguous operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately states the purpose. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 such a simple tool, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, bounds, and inclusivity. However, it lacks notes on edge cases (e.g., non-integer bounds) or return value formatting, which would make it fully robust.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both min and max with inclusive descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond repeating the inclusive bounds, so it reaches the baseline of 3.

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 'Generate a random integer between min and max (inclusive)', specifying the action (generate), the resource (random integer), and the boundary conditions. This distinguishes it from siblings like random_float (which generates floats) and random_choice (which selects from a sequence).

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 context: use when a random integer within a range is needed. The 'integer' wording contrasts with random_float, giving some differentiation, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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