DM20 Protocol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function and return format ('Returns matching facts with details on how they were learned'), which is helpful. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects, leaving gaps for a query tool with no annotation coverage.

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, followed by specific usage instructions in a logical flow. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse. The structure supports quick understanding of the tool's functionality.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and hints at the return format. However, without annotations or an output schema, it could benefit from more details on behavioral aspects like error handling or data freshness.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the optional filters and the default no-argument behavior, but it doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('query', 'searches') and resource ('party's collective knowledge'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_events or get_party_status. It explicitly defines the knowledge scope as facts learned through NPC interactions, observation, investigation, reading, etc., making its function unambiguous.

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 the tool: 'Use with no arguments to list all known facts. Provide a topic to search for specific knowledge. Optionally filter by source or acquisition method.' This covers both the default behavior and specific use cases, offering clear alternatives within the tool itself.

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