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. It discloses that the tool launches a background HTTP server, generates authentication tokens and QR codes, and returns connection URLs and file paths. However, it misses details like whether this requires specific permissions, if it affects other server processes, or potential rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core action, the second elaborates on functionality, and the third specifies returns. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, though minor trimming could improve flow.

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 the tool's complexity (launching a server with multi-player features) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, but gaps remain in behavioral details like error handling, server lifecycle, or integration with other tools like 'stop_party_mode'. More context would enhance completeness.

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 1 parameter with 100% coverage, providing a default and description. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, but since there are zero required parameters and high schema coverage, the baseline is elevated. The description's focus on server functionality indirectly complements the port parameter's role.

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 ('Start the Party Mode web server') and the resource ('for multi-player sessions'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'stop_party_mode' by indicating it launches a server rather than stopping one, and from other session-related tools by focusing on player connectivity rather than game mechanics.

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 implies usage when multi-player sessions are needed, as it mentions 'allows multiple players to connect.' However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'start_claudmaster_session' or prerequisites such as requiring an active campaign. No exclusions or clear alternatives are provided.

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