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 states the tool returns 'a list of quests with their basic information and status,' which gives some behavioral insight. However, it lacks details on pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what constitutes 'basic information.' For a read operation with no annotations, 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 concise and well-structured in two sentences: one stating the purpose and optional filtering, and another describing the return. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return, but lacks context about the system (e.g., what a 'quest' is in this domain) and behavioral details needed for full understanding. It meets the minimum viable threshold.

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 fully documents the single optional parameter 'status' with its enum values and default. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'optionally filtered by status,' but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: 'List quests, optionally filtered by status.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('quests'), and mentions the optional filtering capability. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_quest' or 'update_quest' beyond the basic verb difference.

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 mentions optional filtering by status but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_quest' (if it existed) or other list tools. No context about prerequisites, typical workflows, or exclusion criteria is provided.

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