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 of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what the state includes (e.g., session metadata, participant info). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could be slightly more informative (e.g., hinting at return content) without losing conciseness.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the 'state' includes (e.g., session status, participants, rules), how results are structured, or potential side effects. For a tool that likely returns complex session data, this leaves too much unspecified for effective 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters (session_id, detail_level, include_history, history_limit) with defaults and types. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('current state of a Claudmaster AI DM session'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_game_state' or 'get_sessions', which might retrieve related but different information.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_game_state' and 'get_sessions' available, there's no indication of what differentiates this tool (e.g., session-specific state vs. broader game state), leaving usage context unclear.

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