DM20 Protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's behavior as listing/showing changes, implying it's a read-only operation without destructive effects. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, or output format, which would be helpful given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by additional context. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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 (listing pending edits) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on output format or behavioral constraints, which would help an agent use it 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it appropriately avoids redundancy. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters are present.

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 ('List pending player edits', 'Shows changes detected') and identifies the resource ('character sheet files', 'player-edited Markdown sheets'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'approve_sheet_change' by focusing on listing rather than approving changes.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to view pending edits from character sheets that need DM approval. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'approve_sheet_change' for taking action on these changes.

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