DM20 Protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Add an item' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address permission requirements (though player_id parameter hints at this), whether duplicates are allowed, how inventory limits are handled, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential action and target. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse while conveying the fundamental purpose.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after adding (e.g., returns success confirmation, updated character object, or nothing), doesn't mention error conditions or validation rules, and provides no context about inventory management system constraints. The description should do more given the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have explained relationships between parameters (e.g., how item_type influences other fields).

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 ('Add') and target ('to a character's inventory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remove_item' or 'equip_item' by focusing on inventory addition. However, it doesn't specify whether this creates new items or adds existing ones, leaving some ambiguity.

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. With sibling tools like 'equip_item', 'remove_item', and 'create_character', there's no indication of prerequisites, typical workflows, or when this specific inventory addition operation is appropriate versus other item-related operations.

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