Bling-bag

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the output format ('formatted share card', 'plain text'), the error condition ('Errors if no roll has happened'), and the recency constraint ('most-recent'), enhancing behavioral understanding without contradictions.

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 and resource, followed by output details and error conditions in two efficient sentences. Every sentence adds critical information (e.g., format specifics and usage limits) with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, annotations cover safety/idempotency, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, output format, and error conditions, leaving no gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke it correctly without needing additional explanation.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4 as no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not discuss parameters, which is appropriate since there are none, and it focuses on the tool's purpose and constraints instead.

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 the specific action ('Return the formatted share card') and resource ('most-recent WOW roll'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'roll_identity' (which creates rolls) and 'save_last_roll' (which saves rolls). It precisely defines the output format ('lore header, paragraph, lore footer', 'plain text designed to be screenshotted directly'), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use this tool ('for the most-recent WOW roll') and when not to use it ('Errors if no roll has happened this session'), providing clear context and exclusions. This distinguishes it from alternatives like 'roll_identity' for creating rolls or 'get_identity' for retrieving identity data, offering complete guidance.

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