random_monologue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden, and it discloses the key behavior: the tool returns one random result and supports optional filters. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, so there is no hidden mutation or destructive side effect.

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 short sentences front-load the core action and filters, followed by the practical use case. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

The tool is simple, has no required parameters, and the schema covers all input semantics. Since there is no output schema, 'one random monologue' provides a sufficient return contract for invocation, though it does not describe no-match behavior.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, including exact-or-partial play titles and gender value handling. The description only restates that the filters are optional, adding little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' with a clear resource, 'one random monologue,' and names the optional filters. The word 'random' immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_monologue or search_monologues.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use context: 'Useful for a suggestion when the user is undecided.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the random-selection framing makes the appropriate use clear.

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