Saved Roll List

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds context that no dice are rolled, macros are not consumed, and no individual get is needed. It also discloses success and error return shapes. The description does not contradict annotations and adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the structured fields.

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 tightly written, with every sentence contributing: scope, usage pointers, read-only behavior, non-consumption, and return format. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps alternatives and error handling to a short tail. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only listing tool with a rich annotation set and output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, follow-up actions, side-effect-free behavior, and error envelope. It does not enumerate exact response fields, but the presence of an output schema lessens that need; a short note on pagination or ordering would push it to a 5.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema carries no parameter burden. The description adds useful return and usage semantics: it explains what the list contains, what it does not do, and how the response is structured. This compensates adequately for the absence of parameter-level documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List complete Saved Roll macros owned by the current user in this campaign.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like saved_roll_create, saved_roll_update, and saved_roll_delete, and even directs users to dice_roll and saved_roll_update for follow-up actions. This is unambiguous and contextually grounded.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: to list saved rolls, without needing an individual get, and without rolling dice. It also mentions that repeating the list does not consume macros and that it is read-only for campaign members. This provides clear usage context and effective routing relative to dice_roll and saved_roll_update.

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