roll_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'rolls on or browses' tables, which suggests read-only behavior. It explains that omitting the roll parameter shows the full table, and providing a roll returns a single result. No mention of error handling or side effects, but the behavior is well-described.

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, no fluff, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence is necessary and informative.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should describe return values. It says 'shows the full table' or shows a result, but it does not specify format (e.g., list of items, plain text). Error handling for invalid table names is not mentioned. Adequate but incomplete for a simple tool.

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 100% (baseline 3). The description adds value by providing examples in the table_name description and explaining that omitting roll shows the full table. The 'list' usage for table_name is a meaningful addition beyond the schema.

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 rolls or browses D&D 5e SRD random tables, listing examples like madness and poisons. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., search_monsters, build_character) by focusing on random tables and provides instructions for listing available tables using 'list'.

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 gives clear context: use 'list' to see all tables, or provide a table name with optional roll. It implies usage for browsing/rolling SRD tables but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Sibling tools cover different domains, so context is clear.

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