Rolls damage dice for D&D 5e, applying critical hits by doubling dice while adding modifiers once. Specify dice notation, optional modifier, and crit flag.
掷伤害。暴击只翻倍骰子数、调整值只加一次。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| crit | No | ||
| modifier | No | ||
| dice_notation | Yes |
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 full behavioral burden. It discloses a key ambiguous rule: a crit only doubles the dice count while the modifier is added once. This is genuinely useful behavioral context, though it doesn't mention parsing rules or output format.
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 extremely concise: a short primary statement followed by a single scoping rule. Every sentence earns its place, and the core purpose 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?
The tool is simple enough that this brief description covers the main call semantics, and no output schema exists to explain returns. Still, it lacks dice_notation examples, any indication of what the result looks like, and when to prefer roll_dice instead, leaving moderate gaps.
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 adds meaning to crit (doubles dice only) and modifier (added once), but it never explains the dice_notation string syntax, which is the only required parameter.
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: '掷伤害' (roll damage), which tells the agent this tool resolves damage rolls. It also hints at specifics like crit and modifiers, distinguishing it from the generic roll_dice sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied: this is for rolling damage, with crit and modifier behaviors explained. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus roll_dice, resolve_attack, or resolve_check, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.