DM20 Protocol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the calculation method ('D&D 5e encounter building rules'), output type ('encounter suggestions with monster compositions'), and a conditional behavior ('when rulebooks are loaded, suggests specific monsters'). However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what format the suggestions take, or any limitations like rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: first states the core function, second explains the calculation method, third adds important conditional behavior. No wasted words, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains what the tool does and how parameters relate, but doesn't describe the output format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of encounter building and the lack of structured output documentation, more detail about what 'suggestions' include would be helpful.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds value by explaining the overall purpose of the parameters ('based on party size, level, and difficulty') and mentioning the optional filters ('creature type', 'environment') in the context of monster suggestions. It doesn't provide additional syntax details beyond what's in the schema, but gives meaningful context for how parameters work together.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('return encounter suggestions', 'calculate XP budgets', 'suggest balanced encounters') and resources ('monster compositions', 'D&D 5e encounter building rules'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on encounter building rather than character management, combat actions, or other campaign operations.

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 implies when to use this tool (when building encounters for D&D 5e) and mentions that it 'suggests specific monsters' when rulebooks are loaded, which provides some context about prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools for related functions like calculating experience or getting monster info.

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