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. 'Load a specific campaign' is vague—it doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, if it modifies state, requires permissions, has side effects, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification, as it lacks necessary detail for a tool with no annotations. It's front-loaded but overly minimal.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'loading' entails, the return value, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool in a complex server with many siblings, this minimal description fails to provide adequate context for an AI agent to use it effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'name' clearly documented in the schema as 'Campaign name to load'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, but with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 'Load a specific campaign' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'load_campaign' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_campaign_info' or 'list_campaigns' in terms of what 'loading' actually entails versus getting information or listing campaigns.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_campaign_info', 'list_campaigns', and 'create_campaign', there's no indication whether 'load' implies opening for editing, retrieving details, or some other action, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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