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 key behavioral traits: it creates a JSON file, saves it to a specific directory ('packs/ directory inside the data folder'), and mentions the scope of export (selected entities or full backup). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which are important for a tool that writes files.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and subsequent sentences adding necessary details without waste. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying scope and output location.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, the output format (JSON pack file), and where it's saved. However, it lacks details on the structure of the JSON output or potential side effects, which could be helpful for a tool with no output schema.

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 all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'selected campaign entities' and 'selective export by entity type, location filter, or full campaign backup', which aligns with parameters like 'entity_types' and 'full_backup', but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 campaign content as a portable compendium pack') and resource ('campaign entities'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'export_character_sheet' or 'import_pack'. It precisely defines what the tool does beyond just the name.

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 it ('selective export by entity type, location filter, or full campaign backup'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings. It implies usage scenarios without exclusions.

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