DM20 Protocol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: the multi-step workflow, spoiler boundaries (only Chapter 1 content revealed initially), caching behavior, and auto-population defaults. It doesn't mention error conditions or performance characteristics, but covers most operational aspects.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, workflow steps, spoiler boundaries, examples, and common IDs. While comprehensive, it could be slightly more concise - the common adventure IDs list is helpful but lengthy. Most sentences earn their place by adding practical guidance.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: workflow details, behavioral constraints, examples, and integration guidance. It doesn't describe return values or error responses, but given the complexity of the operation, it covers most aspects an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by providing concrete examples of adventure_id values, explaining the practical meaning of populate_chapter_1 with a specific example, and showing how campaign_name parameter affects behavior (creates new vs uses current).

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 with specific verbs ('load', 'integrate', 'orchestrates') and resources (D&D adventure module, campaign). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on adventure loading workflow rather than character management, campaign creation, or other operations listed among siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: it mentions using 'discover_adventures' to search for adventures before loading, and clarifies parameter usage with concrete examples. It also explains when to provide campaign_name parameter versus using current campaign.

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