Roll actor check

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

The description discloses that the formula comes from the game system adapter and that unsupported systems return SYSTEM_NOT_SUPPORTED, which is valuable behavior beyond the annotations. The annotations do not claim read-only or destructive behavior, and the description does not contradict them; it adds useful fallback context.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place by covering the main action, the adapter fallback, and the player-roll alternative. There is no wasted wording.

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 roll action with a well-described 7-parameter schema and annotations, the description covers the key non-obvious behaviors: adapter-provided formula, SYSTEM_NOT_SUPPORTED fallback, and the request-player-rolls alternative. Without an output schema, a brief note on return shape would be ideal, but the description is still sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a few helpful examples for rollType (ability, skill, save, attack) and explains the adapter source, but it does not substantially expand on the parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Roll') with a specific resource ('a check of the game system for an actor') and gives concrete examples such as ability, skill, save, or attack. It also distinguishes itself from roll-dice and request-player-rolls, so an agent can tell it apart from nearby sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative tools and the conditions that select them: when the system has no adapter, roll-dice rolls a free formula; to let a player roll, use request-player-rolls. This is clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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