roll_dice

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states it rolls dice and returns a dictionary. Does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or error handling. A simple roll operation, but lacks transparency on edge cases (e.g., invalid notation).

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?

Description is clear and well-structured with summary, Args, and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Efficiently conveys purpose and param usage.

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 a simple tool with one param and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers notation, examples, and return structure. Could mention error handling but acceptable for this tool.

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?

Input schema has 1 param 'notation' with 0% description coverage. Description compensates with detailed examples covering various use cases (keep highest, disadvantage). Adds meaning beyond schema, though does not explain default value or validation rules.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Roll' and resource 'dice' with standard dice notation. Examples clarify scope but no explicit differentiation from sibling tools like roll_dnd_stats, which also uses similar notation. Still, the purpose is well-defined.

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?

Describes how to use the tool (dice notation) but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like roll_dnd_stats, roll_multiple, or roll_percentile. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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