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 key behaviors: the tool can be used for both viewing (no arguments) and updating (partial updates), and it explains the immediate effects of 'interaction_mode' ('Takes effect immediately') and the comprehensive nature of 'model_profile' ('Updates all model settings and CC agent files at once'). However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or rate limits.

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 highly concise and well-structured, with four sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the tool's purpose, explaining the no-argument view mode, detailing partial updates, and describing specific parameter behaviors. There is no wasted text, and information is front-loaded effectively.

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 complexity (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description does a good job of covering essential usage scenarios and behavioral traits. It explains the dual view/update functionality and key parameter effects, but could be more complete by addressing potential side effects, error conditions, or the format of returned configuration data.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only briefly mentioning 'model_profile' and 'interaction_mode' in usage contexts. It does not explain parameter interactions or provide additional meaning, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Configure the Claudmaster AI DM settings for the current campaign.' It specifies the resource (Claudmaster AI DM settings) and the action (configure), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_claudmaster_session' or 'end_claudmaster_session' that manage sessions rather than settings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call with no arguments to view current configuration. Provide specific fields to update only those settings (partial update).' It also outlines specific use cases for parameters like 'model_profile' and 'reset_to_defaults', giving clear context for different scenarios.

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