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 explains the rulebook priority behavior (global vs. campaign), which is valuable context. However, it doesn't describe what 'full class definition' includes, potential errors (e.g., if class not found), or performance characteristics like response format or limitations.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences, both of which add clear value. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides important contextual behavior. There is no wasted language or redundancy.

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 (retrieving structured data with two parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the rulebook priority context well, but doesn't cover what the output looks like, error conditions, or limitations of the 'full class definition'—information an agent would need for reliable use.

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 fully documents both parameters (name and level). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying what 'full class definition' means in relation to the level parameter. This meets 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 action ('Get full class definition') and resource ('from loaded rulebooks'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes this from other tools by focusing on class information retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like get_race_info or get_spell_info beyond the resource type.

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 about when to use it ('Works without a campaign loaded' and 'When a campaign is active, its rulebook manager takes priority'), which helps the agent understand the operational context. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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