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. It states the tool calculates experience points but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it modifies game state, requires specific permissions, handles edge cases (e.g., negative XP), or returns structured data. For a calculation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a straightforward calculation tool.

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 tool's moderate complexity (calculation with three inputs) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output format. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at return values.

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 fully documents all three parameters (party_size, party_level, encounter_xp). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying these are inputs for the calculation. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('experience points for an encounter'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on XP calculation rather than character management, combat, or other operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools (none exist in the sibling list).

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing encounter data first), context (e.g., post-combat), or comparisons to other tools. The sibling list includes 'build_encounter_tool' which might relate, but no connection is made.

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