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 returns 'a formatted list' including 'content filters', which adds some context about output format. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds useful detail about the return format. There's no wasted text, and information is front-loaded effectively.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool returns but doesn't provide enough behavioral context (e.g., read-only status, error handling). For a list operation in a campaign management context, more guidance on usage and limitations would be helpful.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't attempt to. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate—the description correctly focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter details.

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 tool's purpose: 'List all library sources enabled for the current campaign.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('library sources'), and scope ('enabled for the current campaign'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_library' or 'get_library_toc', 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 minimal usage guidance. It implies usage in the context of a campaign but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_library' or 'get_library_toc'. No exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent with little contextual direction.

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