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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: that it works globally without a campaign, respects campaign priority when active, and provides concrete examples of search patterns. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, but covers the essential operational context well.

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: a clear purpose statement first, followed by important behavioral context, then practical examples. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 search tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about operational behavior and usage patterns. The examples effectively compensate for the lack of output schema by showing what kinds of results to expect. It could potentially mention result format or error cases, but is largely complete.

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, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value through examples that illustrate parameter combinations (e.g., using query with category, class_filter with category), but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's already documented in the schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Search for rules content') and resource ('across all loaded rulebooks'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_library' by focusing specifically on rules content rather than general library content, making the scope 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 clear context on when to use this tool by explaining it works without a campaign loaded and prioritizes active campaign rulebooks. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among sibling tools, though the context implies it's for rules content specifically.

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