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. It discloses that the tool generates a file in a specific directory ('campaign's sheets/ directory') and mentions output format details (Markdown with YAML frontmatter, Obsidian compatibility). However, it omits critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, or how errors are handled, which are important for a file-export tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by additional useful details about the output. Every sentence earns its place by explaining the file format, location, and viewing options without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for a simple export tool—it explains what the tool does and the output format. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., error handling, file naming conventions) and does not fully compensate for the absence of structured metadata, leaving some gaps in understanding the tool's operation.

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 already documents both parameters well. The description adds no explicit parameter information, but since the tool has only 2 parameters and the schema is fully described, this is acceptable. The baseline score of 3 is exceeded because the description implicitly clarifies the purpose of 'name_or_id' (used to identify the character) and 'player_id' (related to permissions), adding slight contextual value.

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 specific action ('Export a character to a Markdown sheet file') and resource ('character'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_character' (which retrieves data) or 'import_character_file' (which imports). It provides additional detail about the output format and location, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied through context—it exports a character sheet, suggesting use when a formatted, viewable record is needed. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'get_character' (for raw data) or 'sync_all_sheets' (for batch updates). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving some ambiguity.

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