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 key behavioral traits: it processes transcriptions (including file paths), leverages campaign context, automatically chunks large inputs (>200k characters), and returns a prompt for an LLM. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which would be useful for a tool with no annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Sentences earn their place by explaining input types, context usage, and handling of large transcriptions. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are redundant with the schema and could be trimmed for better conciseness.

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 (processing transcriptions with campaign context) and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers input types, automatic chunking, and the return value (a prompt for LLM). However, it lacks details on output format or error cases, which would help an agent use it correctly without an output schema.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reiterates the purpose of 'transcription' and 'speaker_map' but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 tool's purpose: 'Generate structured SessionNote from a raw session transcription.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('structured SessionNote'), and source ('raw session transcription'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_session_note' or 'get_sessions' by focusing on transcription processing and structured summarization.

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 for when to use this tool: when you have a session transcription (raw text or file) and need a structured summary. It mentions leveraging campaign context and handling large transcriptions, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as 'add_session_note' for manual note addition.

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