Resolve D&D 5e checks: add a modifier to a d20 roll and compare against a DC to determine success for ability checks, skills, or saving throws. Natural 1s and 20s do not auto-succeed or fail.
解析属性/技能/豁免检定（d20 + 调整值 vs DC）。检定时 nat20/nat1 不自动成败。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dc | Yes | ||
| modifier | Yes | ||
| advantage | No | ||
| disadvantage | No | ||
| proficiency_bonus | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that nat20/nat1 do not automatically succeed/fail and that resolution is d20 + modifier vs DC. However, it does not state whether the tool rolls the d20, how advantage/disadvantage interact, or what the result looks like.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core formula followed by the critical crit rule. There is no filler or repetition, and every clause adds useful information.
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?
The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the basic comparison logic but omits the return value, advantage/disadvantage behavior, and how proficiency_bonus should be applied. This is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in edge cases.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the meaning of "dc" and "modifier" through the formula, but advantage, disadvantage, and proficiency_bonus are left completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess how they combine with modifier.
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 states a clear verb and resource: "解析属性/技能/豁免检定" (resolve ability/skill/saving throw checks) with the formula d20 + modifier vs DC. It also adds a differentiating mechanical trait (nat20/nat1 do not auto-succeed/fail), which helps separate it from attack or damage tools, though it never explicitly contrasts it with siblings like resolve_attack.
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 the use case: ability checks, skill checks, and saving throws. It gives clear context but no explicit exclusions, no guidance on when to prefer roll_dice or resolve_attack, and no note about how advantage/disadvantage should be passed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.