roll_compose

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the dice rule and mentions the reroll-one-die-only rule. However, it does not specify the output format or what happens with empty arrays, leaving some ambiguity.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loads the core logic. The second sentence is a fragment that could be integrated, but overall it is concise.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential logic but lacks details on parameter handling and return values. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains advantage_sources and disadvantage_sources, and mentions reroll_available via 'Optionally notes the reroll-one-die-only rule,' but does not explicitly detail each parameter's purpose or constraints.

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 net Advantage/Disadvantage from lists of sources, explaining core rules (no stacking, mixing cancels). This differentiates it from siblings like attack_modifiers or turn_options.

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 explains when to use the tool and provides key rules for advantage/disadvantage composition. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implicit context.

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