ddb_roll_pump_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it reports connection status, consecutive failures, last error, and roll count. It also interprets RETRYING state and suggests a remediation step. This is a read-only status tool, and the description implies no side effects. It goes beyond a bare 'status' statement by explaining what the status means and what to do.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and then adds essential diagnostic context. Every clause adds value—status metrics, failure interpretation, and a recommended action—with no fluff. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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 status-reporting tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what data will be reported, what the key status indicator means, and what course of action to take. The sibling tools are distinct in purpose, and this description fully covers the tool's role.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers 100% of them trivially. According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none, which is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Report the D&D Beyond roll pump's connection health ... and how many rolls it has captured.' It identifies the specific resource (roll pump) and the metrics reported. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start/stop/poll, which perform actions rather than report status.

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 provides actionable guidance when RETRYING with climbing failure count indicates a dropped socket and suggests 're-harvest and restart the pump.' This implicitly refers to related tools (e.g., start_ddb_roll_pump) but does not explicitly name them or state when NOT to use this tool. It gives clear context but lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives.

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