Fate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, indicating mutating side effects. The description adds context by listing state-changing operations (spending/refreshing points, marking stress), which aligns with annotations. However, it doesn't disclose reversibility, permission requirements, or potential side effects on entities, so it adds moderate value beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and usage conditions. It avoids filler and directly states exclusions and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place.

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's complexity (14 params, 4 action types), the description covers the main operations and usage boundaries. It doesn't explain return formats, but no output schema exists; however, the description is clear enough for an agent to invoke the correct action. Minor gaps like how invokes resolve or what the roll result looks like are not critical.

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 100%, so all 14 parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, only domain context (e.g., 'Fudge dice'). Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no compensation needed.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve Fate-style actions with Fudge dice, aspects, Fate points, and stress.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming an alternative ('the bound ruleset's roll tools or command (action: resolve)') for d20 checks, so an agent can tell it apart without inspecting other schemas.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use conditions ('rolling 4dF against a difficulty, invoking or compelling aspects, spending or refreshing Fate points, or marking stress and consequences') and when-not-to-use with a concrete alternative. This leaves no ambiguity about selection criteria.

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