DM20 Protocol

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It adds useful behavioral context about rulebook manager priority and campaign state dependencies, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or return format. This is adequate but has clear gaps for a read operation.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded and zero waste. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second provides crucial behavioral context about campaign state.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and behavioral nuances, though it could benefit from mentioning return format or error cases to be fully comprehensive.

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 the single 'name' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules, meeting 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 race definition') and resource ('from loaded rulebooks'), providing specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_class_info' or 'get_monster_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 it works ('without a campaign loaded' and 'when a campaign is active'), explaining priority rules. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives or exclusions, such as compared to 'search_rules' or 'list_rulebooks', which would be needed for a top score.

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