roll_dice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states the action without revealing whether the operation is random, side-effect-free, or requires permissions. The agent has no information about error handling or validation of the notation format.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence, no wasted words). It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action. While under-specification is an issue, that is penalized in other dimensions; for structure and efficiency, this is near-optimal.

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?

Despite having an output schema and a simple tool, the description is incomplete for correct invocation. It omits parameter semantics and fails to provide enough context about how the notation string should be formatted. An agent would likely need to guess or rely on the output schema for clues, making this insufficient for a 2-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate. It mentions 'notation' but does not explain what constitutes valid dice notation (e.g., '2d6'), nor does the description mention the 'num_rolls' parameter at all. The agent is left without any semantic guidance for the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('roll') and resource ('dice'), and clearly distinguishes this tool from its unrelated siblings (web_search, find_icon, etc.). The term 'notation' hints at dice notation, making the purpose unambiguous for a dice-rolling tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings are unrelated, the description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must rely solely on the tool name and vague description to decide when to invoke it.

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