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 the tool is for getting data, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves side effects. The description is minimal and lacks context beyond the basic action.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 of game state (likely involving multiple entities and statuses), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the return value includes (e.g., JSON structure, fields) or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with potential richness in output, more context is needed.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline score of 4 is given as the schema fully handles parameters, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 'Get the current game state' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current game state'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes 'game state' (e.g., combat status, character positions, campaign progress) and does not differentiate from siblings like 'get_campaign_info' or 'get_party_status', which might overlap in scope.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an active game), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings such as 'update_game_state' or other get_* tools that might retrieve specific aspects of the game state. Usage is implied only by the tool name.

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