roll_compose

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the two key rules: multiple sources never add dice, and any Advantage with any Disadvantage yields a straight roll. It also mentions the optional reroll-one-die-only rule. This goes beyond the schema by explaining the operational logic.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is stated first, followed by the critical rule about cancellation. Every clause adds value: the source lists, the no-stacking rule, the cancellation rule, and the optional reroll note. This is an exemplary concise description.

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 tool whose core function is to compose advantage/disadvantage, the description is quite complete: it explains the input lists and the transformation rules. The output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values. The only minor gap is that the 'Optionally notes the reroll-one-die-only rule' is a bit ambiguous—does 'notes' mean it returns the rule as a flag or adds it to the output? Still, overall the tool is well-understood from the description.

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 adds meaning to the core parameters by referring to 'lists of sources' (advantage_sources/disadvantage_sources) and the 'reroll-one-die-only rule' (reroll_available). However, it does not explain the other six parameters, which are mostly generic infrastructure fields. The compensation is partial but covers the tool-specific parameters.

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 a specific verb+resource: "Compose net Advantage/Disadvantage from lists of sources." It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like check_make or attack_modifiers by focusing on the net composition logic instead of actual dice rolling or modifiers.

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 implies the usage context: when you have lists of advantage/disadvantage sources and need to determine the net effect. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the task is specific enough that an agent can recognize when to use it. No misleading guidance is present.

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