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. It explains the healing mechanics but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this consumes resources permanently, requires specific character states (e.g., not in combat), affects other character attributes, or has any side effects. The description is incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 that directly explain the core functionality and mechanics. No wasted words, though it could potentially be more front-loaded by stating the primary purpose more prominently before the optional mechanics.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It explains what the tool does mechanically but doesn't cover important context like what state changes occur, what permissions are needed (beyond the player_id parameter), what the expected outcome is, or how this interacts with other character systems. The description should do more given the complexity.

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 documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Perform a short rest for a character') and resource ('character'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'long_rest' by specifying the short rest context. It goes beyond the tool name by explaining the optional hit dice spending mechanic.

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 like 'long_rest' or other healing/restoration tools in the sibling list. It mentions the optional hit dice spending but doesn't explain when this is appropriate versus other recovery methods.

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