roll_dice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'roll the dice' without explaining what this entails: it does not mention that the outcome is random, what format the notation should take, or whether there are any side effects or outputs beyond what the output schema defines. The behavioral trait of randomness is implied but not stated.

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, terse sentence with no redundancy. However, it is under-specified: it lacks necessary details such as the notation format and the purpose of num_rolls. While concise, it sacrifices essential information, making it only minimally adequate.

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 two parameters and the absence of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the notation format or the num_rolls parameter, both of which are essential for effective use. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the tool's core behavior and parameter semantics remain unexplained.

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 for both parameters. It only mentions 'notation' as a concept but does not define its syntax (e.g., '2d6'), and it entirely omits the 'num_rolls' parameter. The description provides almost no added meaning beyond the schema's bare field names.

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 'Roll the dice with the given notation' clearly states the action (roll) and the resource (dice), with a modifier ('with the given notation') that ties to the primary parameter. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings (web_search, check_holiday), which are entirely unrelated actions.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Siblings are unrelated but there is no explicit 'use this when' direction, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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