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. It states 'process a player action' but doesn't explain what processing involves—e.g., whether it updates game state, requires authentication, has side effects, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotations, 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 a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's front-loaded without elaboration, which could benefit from more detail given the tool's potential complexity, but it remains appropriately sized for its minimal content.

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 is incomplete for a tool that likely mutates game state or interacts with a session. It doesn't explain what happens after processing—e.g., returns a result, updates state, or triggers events. For a 4-parameter tool in a gaming context, this lacks necessary context for effective use.

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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 states the tool 'Process a player action in the current Claudmaster session,' which provides a verb ('process') and resource ('player action'), but it's vague about what 'process' entails—does it execute, validate, or log the action? It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'combat_action' or 'party_resolve_action,' leaving ambiguity in scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'combat_action' and 'party_resolve_action,' the description lacks context on whether this is for general gameplay, specific session types, or prerequisites. It mentions 'current Claudmaster session' but doesn't clarify exclusions or alternatives.

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