group_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does a solid job: it defines the group success threshold, stakes_success and stakes_failure semantics, hides stakes_hidden from players, and clarifies that category edges only the affected participant's roll. It does not cover side effects or result shape, but the core behavioral contract is clear.

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 compact and well organized: main behavior first, then group mechanics, stake requirements, and category behavior. Each sentence contributes, though the parameter gap makes it feel incomplete rather than merely concise.

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 tool with 10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It gives useful group-roll context but omits meaning of several required inputs and the shape of the returned group result, leaving an agent to guess when invoking it.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains stakes_success, stakes_failure, stakes_hidden, and category. It leaves character_ids, attribute, reason, opponent_level, advantage_character_ids, and disadvantage_character_ids mostly undefined, and does not say what values they accept or how opponent_level affects the roll.

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 names a precise operation: roll one attribute test per character and return the group result. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling attribute_test, which handles a single character's roll, and from other roll tools like usage_roll or doom_roll.

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?

It explicitly says to use this for coordinated actions such as a whole party crossing unseen, giving a concrete situational cue. It does not explicitly state when to use a single-character test instead, but the distinction is strongly implied by the presence of attribute_test as a sibling.

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