check_make

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly details condition behaviors (Blinded/Deafened auto-fail, Poisoned/Frightened Disadvantage, Exhaustion penalty, charmer Advantage), both invocation modes (with/without d20_result) including return shapes, and error behavior ('Missing required facts return exact paths; malformed inputs...return their structured recovery class'). This is exceptional transparency.

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 dense but structured, opening with the core purpose and then enumerating condition effects, modes, and error handling. Each sentence adds necessary information, though the semicolon-heavy condition list could be more readable. Slightly long but appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 description covers key behavioral rules, both invocation modes, return value shapes (with/without d20_result), condition interactions, and error handling. Given the complex nested schema and no annotations, the description provides all essential context for correct use.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains check_requires semantics ('explicit empty array for neither'), ties target_charmed_by_actor to social Advantage, and specifies the two d20_result modes and their outputs. This helps the agent understand parameter interactions.

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 opens with 'Adjudicate an ability check (a D20 Test) against a DC, condition-aware,' clearly specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like save_check via 'ability check' and from roll_compose by framing adjudication with condition effects.

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 clearly states the use case (ability checks vs DC) and condition handling, but never explicitly contrasts with alternatives such as save_check or attack_modifiers. However, the role is unambiguous due to the phrase 'ability check (a D20 Test)' and the detailed condition rules.

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