simulate_damage

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 computes hit probability, crit chance, average damage, and turns to kill, but does not explain behavioral details such as how critical hits affect damage calculation (e.g., dice doubling) or how advantage/disadvantage influences probabilities.

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 concise at two sentences with no redundancy. Every sentence adds value: first states high-level purpose, second lists computed outputs.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description lists several computed outputs but does not clarify the return format, assumptions (e.g., damage on hit, critical damage calculation), or how edge cases like disadvantage are handled. It is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 8 parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond the general outputs, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 calculates average damage per round for an attack routine, listing specific outputs like hit probability, critical hit chance, average damage, and turns to kill. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that analyze broader aspects like loadouts or encounters.

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 implies the tool is used for computing DPR of attack routines, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like analyze_loadout or compare_monsters. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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