generate_event

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

With no annotations, the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates a random event, implying a non-deterministic, likely side-effect-free operation. However, it does not mention output format, whether it modifies state, or any constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded, though it omits additional helpful details that could be included without bloat.

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 is simple (no parameters, no output schema), the description is functional but minimal. It defines the purpose but does not explain the return value's structure or format, which is relevant since no output schema exists.

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 everything. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter explanations, earning a 4.

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 verb (generate) and the resource (a random abstract RPG event), making the tool's function unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like generate_corporation, the object type 'event' provides sufficient specificity.

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 usage (when you need a random RPG event) but provides no explicit context on when to prefer this over sibling tools like roll_dice or check_success. The intended use case is implied rather than articulated.

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