Dice MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, description carries full burden. It comprehensively lists functional capabilities but omits critical behavioral context: whether results populate history (relevant given clear_history/get_history siblings), whether it is idempotent/destructive, or return structure. States WHAT it supports but not side effects or persistence.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence establishes core function; second efficiently enumerates capabilities. Appropriate information density for complexity level. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With 9 parameters spanning multiple game systems and history-related siblings present, description is minimally adequate. Omits relationship to history management (critical given siblings) and cross-parameter constraints (e.g., advantage only working with 1d20) that description could highlight to prevent errors, though some constraints exist in schema.

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 high (89%), establishing baseline 3. Description adds significant semantic value by mapping abstract parameters to TRPG concepts: 'advantage/disadvantage' (D&D 5e), 'bonus/penalty dice' (CoC), 'degrees' (coc/pf2e/pbta), clarifying domain-specific usage beyond schema syntax.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Roll' with resource 'dice' and domain 'TRPG notation'. Lists distinctive features (Fudge dice, keep-highest/lowest, CoC bonus/penalty dice) that clearly differentiate from sibling tools like clear_history or reroll.

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?

Lists supported features but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings (reroll, roll_pool) or when to use history tools. Usage is implied by feature set but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use reroll for modifying previous rolls').

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