DM20 Protocol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the source format constraint and provides practical guidance on obtaining the JSON file, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't describe what happens after import (e.g., whether the character becomes active, if validation occurs, or what errors might occur), leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's purpose, specifying the supported format, and providing practical file acquisition guidance. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. One minor improvement could be combining the format and file guidance into a single more concise sentence.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and how to prepare input. However, it lacks information about what happens after successful import (output/result) and doesn't mention potential errors or limitations beyond format support, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description mentions 'D&D Beyond JSON format' which aligns with the source_format parameter's default value, but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Import a character from a local JSON file') and the target resource ('into the current campaign'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'import_from_dndbeyond' by specifying it works with local files rather than direct D&D Beyond imports.

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 this tool ('Import a character from a local JSON file into the current campaign') and specifies the supported format ('Currently supports D&D Beyond JSON format'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'import_from_dndbeyond' for comparison.

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