Initiative Manage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It covers authorization (DM-only), action behaviors, server-side roll derivation, expression fallback, and reorder overriding value order. It does not explicitly describe the effects of start / next / end, but the remaining behavioral context is strong.

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 dense but well-organized: a one-line scope statement followed by a compact per-action breakdown. Every sentence carries functional information, and the structure makes action-specific requirements easy to scan.

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 complexity, the description is quite complete: it covers action-specific parameters, system-dependent roll derivation, CoC7e edge cases, and state retrieval via siblings. The only notable gaps are the undocumented character_name parameter and the implicit semantics of start / next / end, which are minor given the output schema and clear overall context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps most parameters to actions, explains optional expression semantics, and clarifies how value and ordered_token_ids affect ordering. However, character_name is present in the schema but not mentioned in the description, leaving one parameter unexplained.

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 identifies the tool as initiative management ('先攻管理') restricted to DM-only use, and enumerates the full set of supported actions. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that state is retrieved through initiative_state / events_poll, so there is no confusion with nearby tools.

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 gives explicit per-action usage contracts, including which parameters each action requires, and provides system-specific guidance such as not using roll for CoC7e and instead using add then start or set. It also directs the agent to sibling tools for state retrieval, effectively explaining when this tool is not the right choice.

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