foundry_roll

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not mention potential side effects like creating a chat message (createChatMessage parameter), whether the roll is asynchronous, or how results are returned. The description is minimal and does not disclose what happens when a roll is executed.

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 extremely short, which aids front-loading, but it is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single sentence provides no structure or additional detail. For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description should be longer to be useful.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, annotations minimal), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return values, side effects, or how to use the tool in context. Without this information, an agent cannot reliably invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 29% (only userId and clientId have descriptions). The description does not explain the syntax of 'formula' (e.g., '2d6+1'), nor does it clarify the meaning of flavor, whisper, speaker, createChatMessage, or clientId. With such low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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 action ('Roll') and the resource ('a dice formula'), which is specific and unambiguous. No sibling tool includes 'roll', so it is distinguished from read-only operations like foundry_get_last_roll and foundry_list_rolls.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, relationship to get_last_roll/list_rolls, or when not to use it. The intended usage is only implied by the name.

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