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. It discloses that the tool accesses rulebooks and prioritizes campaign rulebooks, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., if the monster isn't found), rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 and well-structured, with two sentences that directly address purpose and usage context. Every word contributes meaning, and it's front-loaded with the core function, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details on output format or error handling, which could be helpful for an agent invoking it.

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, with the 'name' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any additional semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra 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 action ('Get monster stat block') and resource ('from loaded rulebooks'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_character' or 'get_spell_info' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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 tool's operational scope. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for effective usage.

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