roll_dice

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It explains the input format and that it supports modifiers, but it does not disclose the exact return value (e.g., whether it returns the sum, individual rolls, or a structured object). This is a notable gap.

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?

One short, focused sentence. It is front-loaded and uses examples to convey the format efficiently. Every word adds value.

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 is simple, but with no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the output looks like. It does not. For a dice roller, the output is usually a number, but that is not confirmed. The description is adequate for basic use but leaves the return format ambiguous.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the parameter semantics: 'expr' is an RPG notation string, with examples showing format. It adds meaning beyond the plain 'string' type, though it could be even more explicit about allowed expressions.

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: rolling dice using RPG notation. It includes concrete examples ('2d6', '1d20+5') that reinforce the purpose. The sibling tools are all generators (address, name, etc.), so roll_dice is distinctly identifiable.

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 for rolling dice in RPG notation, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the domain is obvious enough that no further guidance is needed.

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