check_success

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state what the tool returns, whether it uses randomness, or what critical success/failure mean for the output. The only behavioral hint is the default relationship between critical_failure and critical_success.

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 compact and well-structured: a single-sentence purpose followed by a concise parameter list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool's output behavior is entirely unspecified; it does not describe the return value, how critical successes or failures affect results, or whether the check is random. Given that no output schema exists and annotations are absent, the description should have disclosed the outcome format and rules, making it incomplete.

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 description adds semantic meaning to all three parameters by explaining their ranges and defaults, such as 'Chance of success (0-100)' and 'Top % range for critical success (0-50)'. It also clarifies critical_failure's default behavior, compensating for the input schema's 0% description coverage.

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 function with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('success'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like roll_dice. It focuses on probability-based success checks rather than general generation, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and one-sentence purpose, leaving the agent to infer appropriate contexts.

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