doom_roll

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It clearly explains the consequences of a depleted die (character becomes Doomed, testing everything at Disadvantage until long rest) and that call_on_doom always steps down and returns a value to subtract. It doesn't describe return formats or error behavior, but for a dice-rolling tool the key side effects are well covered.

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 concise and front-loads the core purpose, then explains modes and usage guidance. However, given missing parameter semantics, a bit more space could have been used to mention key parameters like 'disadvantage' and 'reason', making it slightly under-sized but not verbose.

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?

For a complex tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the mechanics and usage routes but lacks parameter explanations. It doesn't define what the return value looks like for each mode (though no output schema exists), so agents may not know what to expect. Overall adequate for triggering but incomplete for full invocation confidence.

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%, meaning none of the 7 parameters are documented in the schema. The description explains the 'mode' parameter's values but does not explain 'reason', 'character_id', 'disadvantage', or the stakes_* parameters. With a high parameter count and low coverage, the description must compensate, but it leaves most parameters unexplained.

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 clearly defines the tool as managing a Doom die with three specific modes (roll, call_on_doom, restore), each explained with distinct behavior. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming attribute_test and combat_attack as already handling doom rolls, so an agent can easily identify when this tool is appropriate.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('only for other triggers') and names the specific siblings that already handle doom rolls, preventing duplicate calls. The three modes are each given a clear condition, leaving no ambiguity about invocation context.

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