Roll dice

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the return value (total and every die result), the @-reference resolution behavior, and the key side effect: nothing is posted unless toChat is true. This gives an agent a clear behavioral model despite the sparse annotations.

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?

Three short sentences pack the primary action, examples, return behavior, actorId behavior, and posting side effect with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 5-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers formula syntax, return behavior, actor scoping, and chat side effect. It does not specify a structured return shape or enumerate all rollMode implications, but the schema covers the enum and the description is 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?

Input schema already documents all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving formula syntax examples and explaining how actorId affects @ references, which is not fully captured in the schema.

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 and resource ('Roll a free formula in Foundry') with concrete examples ('2d6+3', '4d6kh3'), making the tool's action clear. It does not explicitly name sibling roll tools like roll-actor-check or roll-initiative, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 establishes a general use case: rolling arbitrary formulas in any game system. The actorId conditional ('@ references use that actor's roll data') provides context but no explicit guidance about when to choose roll-dice over sibling roll tools or when not to use it.

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