calculate_dice_probability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Returns: {probability}', omitting behavioral details such as calculation method (exact combinatorics?), assumptions (fair dice?), or handling of large numbers. This is insufficient for transparency.

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 very concise (one sentence plus a reference) without unnecessary words. It could benefit from slight restructuring (e.g., using bullet points), but it is not wasteful.

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 large number of sibling tools and absence of annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks usage comparison with similar probability tools (e.g., card_draw_probability), behavioral details, and does not leverage the existence of an output schema to describe return values beyond a placeholder.

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% with each parameter clearly described. The description adds little beyond schema, such as summarizing target types ('exact values, minimum or maximum targets'), which corresponds to the 'comparison' enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the weight.

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 verb 'Calculate', the resource 'dice roll probability', and specifies the scope 'for exact values, minimum or maximum targets'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'calculate_card_draw_probability' by focusing on dice. The reference to list_bundles adds context.

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?

The description mentions 'See list_bundles for related 'jeux-probabilites' calculators', which hints at alternative tools but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others. Given the many sibling probability tools, more explicit guidance (e.g., 'for dice only, not cards') would improve this dimension.

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