roll_dice

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes actions but does not disclose behavioral traits such as randomness source, potential side effects (none), or edge cases (e.g., non-positive sides or count). The existence of an output schema partially compensates, but more transparency would be beneficial.

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 front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by a clean parameter list. Two sentences and no wasted words; every part 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?

For a simple tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and defaults. No additional context is needed given the tool's low complexity.

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?

The description explains both parameters in natural language (sides and count) with default values, adding significant meaning beyond the input schema which only provides type and default. Schema description coverage is 0% but the description fully compensates, making parameter semantics excellent.

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 clearly states 'Roll one or more dice with specified number of sides,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like flip_coin by explicitly mentioning dice.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The usage is implied from the description but alternatives among siblings are not discussed. For a simple tool this may suffice but better would be to mention it's for dice simulation not general random number generation.

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