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 describes the action ('gracefully shuts down', 'closes all WebSocket connections'), which implies it's a destructive operation that terminates active connections. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error conditions, or what happens to in-progress sessions, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action, and the second elaborates on the behavior. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys essential information without redundancy.

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 (server shutdown with connections) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but omits details like confirmation prompts, return values, or error handling. For a destructive operation with no structured safety hints, more context would be beneficial.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied since there are no parameters to document, and the description does not add unnecessary param info.

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 ('Stop the Party Mode web server and disconnect all players') and distinguishes it from its sibling tool 'start_party_mode'. It uses precise verbs ('stop', 'disconnect', 'shuts down', 'closes') and identifies the resource ('Party Mode web server').

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 context by referencing 'Party Mode web server' and 'players', suggesting it should be used when the server is running and connected. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions, such as whether it can be used if the server is already stopped.

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