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. It clearly describes the behavior: popping from a queue (implying mutation/consumption), returning action details and queue count, or reporting emptiness. It covers the core operation and outcomes well, though it doesn't mention side effects like permissions or rate limits.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the action, the second details the return values. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 (queue management with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the operation and return values. It could improve by mentioning authentication needs or error cases, but it covers the essentials adequately.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately omits parameter details, focusing on the tool's purpose and output. This meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 ('Pop the next pending player action from the Party Mode queue') and the resource involved ('Party Mode queue'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'party_resolve_action' or 'player_action' by focusing on queue retrieval rather than action resolution or submission.

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 needing to retrieve pending actions from the Party Mode queue, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'party_resolve_action' or 'get_party_status'. It provides basic context but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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