Dice MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It fails to describe what the tool returns (success count? dice values? glitches?), whether results are persisted to history (relevant given 'get_history'/'clear_history' siblings), or detailed mechanics of how explosions and botches resolve.

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. The first sentence front-loads the core action, while the second provides domain context. Every word earns its place; no redundancy with schema or annotations.

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?

While adequate for a dice roller with moderate schema coverage, the description lacks output disclosure (critical given no output_schema exists) and omits behavioral details about history persistence that would be expected given the tool's siblings. Sufficient but contains gaps.

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 67% (4/6 parameters described). The description provides baseline context for 'pool' (implied as number of dice via 'dice pool') and 'sides' (implied as die sides), but adds no syntax details or format guidance beyond what the schema already provides for the well-documented parameters (target, explode, etc.).

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 provides a specific verb ('Roll') and resource ('dice pool'), plus the action performed ('count successes'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'roll_dice' by emphasizing 'pool' and naming specific pool-based game systems (WoD, Shadowrun), signaling exactly when this tool is appropriate versus single-die rollers.

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 second sentence explicitly states the intended use cases ('Use for WoD, Shadowrun, or similar pool-based systems'), providing clear domain context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or direct comparisons to siblings like 'reroll' or 'roll_dice'.

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