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. It describes the positive effects (resets, restores, clears) but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether this consumes resources (e.g., time in-game), requires specific conditions (e.g., safe location), has side effects (e.g., removes temporary buffs), or permission requirements (implied by the player_id parameter but not explained). The description is functional but lacks operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a bullet-like list of effects in a single, efficient sentence. Every phrase adds value without redundancy, and it avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and effects but lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., prerequisites, side effects) and return values. For a mutation tool with three parameters, it provides a solid foundation but leaves gaps in operational understanding, making it minimally complete but not fully comprehensive.

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 documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the 'restore_hp' parameter's effect ('optionally restores HP to maximum'), which complements the schema's technical description. However, it does not elaborate on the other parameters beyond what the schema provides, keeping it at a strong but not perfect score.

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 ('Perform a long rest') and the target ('for a character'), then enumerates the concrete effects: resets spell slots, restores hit dice, clears death saves, and optionally restores HP. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'short_rest' by specifying the longer duration and more comprehensive recovery effects.

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 implies usage when a character needs full recovery (spell slots, hit dice, death saves, HP), but does not explicitly state when to choose this over 'short_rest' or other recovery tools. It mentions the optional HP restoration parameter, which hints at usage flexibility, but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or prerequisites.

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