foundry_next_round

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

The annotation indicates readOnlyHint=false, so the tool is known to mutate state, but the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects, requirements (e.g., an active encounter), or what happens if no encounter is active.

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 a single, concise sentence (six words) that front-loads the action and resource. There is no redundancy or extraneous information, making it highly efficient.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not mention preconditions, return behavior, or side effects. Given the complexity of encounter management, the description leaves significant gaps that an agent would need clarified.

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 67%, but the description adds no parameter information. The 'encounter' parameter is undocumented, and the description does not clarify which parameters matter or how they affect the action. The description provides no value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Advance') and resource ('next encounter round'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'next_turn' and 'previous_round'. It unambiguously states the tool's function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'foundry_next_turn' or 'foundry_previous_round'. It does not mention prerequisites like an active encounter, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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