DM20 Protocol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't explain what happens when dice are rolled (e.g., random generation, result display, persistence), whether rolls are logged somewhere, or if there are any constraints like maximum dice count. 'Roll dice' implies a write/action operation, but details are lacking.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses specific terminology ('D&D notation') that experienced users will immediately understand.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., individual dice results, totals, formatted output), how errors are handled, or the tool's role within the broader D&D tool ecosystem. The single sentence leaves too many behavioral questions unanswered.

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 fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples of complex notation, no explanation of how advantage/disadvantage interact). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Roll dice') and specifies the notation system ('D&D notation'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'combat_action' or 'player_action' that might also involve dice rolling in specific contexts, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'combat_action', 'player_action', or 'calculate_experience' that might involve dice mechanics, there's no indication of whether this is a general-purpose dice roller or intended for specific game phases.

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