DM20 Protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions what the tool returns ('most recent changelog entries') but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage, though it does specify the source ('GitHub repository').

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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by additional context in a second sentence. Both sentences earn their place by specifying what's fetched and why, with zero waste or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does and its purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., response format, errors). This is adequate for a simple fetch tool but leaves gaps in transparency.

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 appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's function. A baseline of 4 is applied since it avoids redundancy and adds value through purpose clarification.

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 ('Fetch', 'Returns') and resource ('latest release notes from the CHANGELOG', 'changelog entries from the GitHub repository'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_for_updates', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing 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 implies usage context ('to show users what's new'), suggesting when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., compared to 'check_for_updates'), leaving some ambiguity for the agent in selecting among siblings.

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