roll_dice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states that dice are rolled, without mentioning randomness, error handling for invalid notation, return format, or how num_rolls affects output. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.

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 consists of one short, direct sentence with no redundant wording, achieving excellent conciseness. However, the brevity sacrifices essential details, making it slightly less 'appropriately sized' for the tool's two-parameter surface.

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 two parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description should clarify the expected notation syntax and what the tool returns (e.g., individual rolls, aggregate totals). It does neither, leaving basic usage ambiguous for an agent that needs to invoke this tool correctly.

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 refers only to 'given notation' and does not explain its expected format (e.g., dice notation) or the role of num_rolls. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the parameter meanings must be guessed solely from their names, which is insufficient.

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 identifies the action (roll dice) and the key input (notation), making it distinct from unrelated sibling tools like web_search or get_quote. However, it does not explicitly clarify that 'notation' follows dice notation (e.g., '2d6'), leaving some ambiguity for an agent unfamiliar with RPG conventions.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. The sibling tools are unrelated, so there is no explicit contrast or scenario described, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context solely from the name.

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