attack_modifiers

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

Discloses key behaviors: returns Exhaustion as flat modifier, handles ambiguous rules with cannot-adjudicate and citation. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it adequately covers non-obvious behavior.

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 sentences, dense but not verbose. Could be more structured (e.g., bullet list of conditions) but remains readable and 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?

Given no output schema and nested parameters, the description should cover more condition interactions and return value format. It focuses on special cases but omits normal resolution and 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?

Description mentions some conditions and distance but does not explain all parameters (e.g., can_see_attacker, is_grappler_of_attacker, exhaustion_level). With 0% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 composes Advantage/Disadvantage from conditions and distance, citing specific rules (Prone, Blinded, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like roll_compose or turn_plan.

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?

Implied usage for determining attack roll modifiers, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use (e.g., for saving throws). No differentiation from siblings.

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