Roll dice for D&D 5e using standard notation like 2d6+3. Supports advantage and disadvantage on single d20, returning a structured result with rolls, totals, and criticals.
掷骰。notation 如 '2d6+3'。advantage/disadvantage 仅对单个 d20 有效。 返回统一结构：notation, rolls, natural, modifier, advantage, disadvantage, crit, total。 natural 仅在单颗骰时为该骰点数，多颗骰时为 None。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| crit | No | ||
| notation | Yes | ||
| advantage | No | ||
| disadvantage | 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 explicitly lists the return structure (notation, rolls, natural, modifier, advantage, disadvantage, crit, total) and explains the special case for 'natural' (only for a single die). This is valuable behavioral disclosure beyond the schema. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but for a dice roller this is a minor gap.
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—four short sentences in Chinese—with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage constraints, then the output structure, and finally a nuance. Every sentence adds information, making it highly efficient.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers most essentials: notation, advantage/disadvantage constraints, and the return format. However, it omits the behavior of the 'crit' input parameter and does not mention error handling for invalid notation. These are gaps that could confuse an agent, but the core usage is understandable.
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 explain parameters. It explains the 'notation' format with an example and clarifies the semantics of 'advantage' and 'disadvantage' (single d20 only). However, the 'crit' parameter is only mentioned in the return structure, not explained as an input—its purpose (e.g., force a critical hit) is left unclear. Thus partial coverage.
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 the tool's function: '掷骰' (roll dice) and provides the notation format example. It distinguishes itself from siblings like roll_damage by implying it is the generic dice roller, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 gives a specific constraint: advantage/disadvantage only works for a single d20, which tells the agent when these parameters are appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use roll_dice versus siblings like roll_damage or resolve_check, leaving the selection partly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.