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 effectively describes what the tool does: compares installed vs. GitHub versions, returns update status, versions, and upgrade command if needed. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like network calls, error handling, or authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the comparison and return values, and the third provides usage timing. Each sentence earns its place by adding distinct value.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about what it does, when to use it, and what information it returns. However, without an output schema, it doesn't specify the exact structure of the returned data (e.g., format of versions, command syntax), leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, but it does clarify the tool's scope (dm20-protocol specifically) which adds context beyond the empty schema. This justifies a score above the baseline of 3 for zero-parameter tools.

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: 'Check if a newer version of dm20-protocol is available.' It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('dm20-protocol'), and scope ('available updates'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which are unrelated to version checking or updates.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Call this at session start to notify the user about available updates.' This provides clear timing guidance and context for usage, which is not implied by the tool name alone.

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