spell_attack_bonus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it clearly states how the inputs are combined. The formula fully describes the pure-calculation behavior; it does not mention side effects or return type, but those are less critical for a simple calculator.

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 a single compact formula with no filler. It is front-loaded and every part contributes to understanding the tool.

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 two-integer pure calculation, the formula plus the schema is nearly complete. It does not explicitly state that the return value is the computed integer sum, but that follows directly from the formula.

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 does so by defining the relationship between the two parameters: ability_mod plus proficiency_bonus. The mapping from Chinese terms to property names is implicit but recoverable.

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 the exact computation: spell attack bonus equals proficiency plus ability modifier. This makes the resource and operation clear, and the formula differentiates the tool from sibling spell_save_dc even without explicitly naming an alternative.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like spell_save_dc, resolve_attack, or roll_dice. The only usage cue is the formula itself, so the agent must infer context.

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