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 and does well by explaining the tool's behavior: it provides 'instant visual feedback' with animated dots and a message, and the indicator 'disappears automatically' when party_resolve_action is called. It doesn't mention potential side effects or errors, but covers the core interactive behavior adequately.

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 perfectly structured: the first sentence states the purpose, the second provides timing and visual feedback details, and the third explains the termination condition. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, how it behaves, and how it interacts with sibling tools. No additional context is needed given the tool's straightforward role in the workflow.

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 value by explaining the parameter's purpose ('message shown to players') and providing a concrete example ('The Dungeon Master consults the ancient scrolls…'), which helps the agent understand the semantic intent beyond the schema's technical definition.

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: to signal to players that the DM is preparing the next narrative. It specifies the exact trigger ('immediately after party_pop_action') and the visual effect ('animated dots + message'), distinguishing it from siblings like party_resolve_action which ends the indicator.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool ('immediately after party_pop_action') and when it ends ('automatically when you call party_resolve_action'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming party_pop_action as the prerequisite and party_resolve_action as the termination event.

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