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 explains what the tool does (validation checks) and what it returns (detailed report), but lacks details on error handling, performance characteristics, or permissions required. It adequately describes the core behavior but could be more comprehensive.

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: the first states the purpose and key constraint, the second enumerates validation aspects and output. Every phrase adds value with zero redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (validation operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the validation scope and report output. However, it could benefit from mentioning error cases or limitations to be fully complete for agent use.

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 description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'file_path'). However, with only one parameter and high schema coverage, the baseline is strong. The description contextually reinforces that 'file_path' refers to a 'pack JSON file' for validation.

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 ('validate a compendium pack file without importing it') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'import_pack' by emphasizing the non-importing nature. It specifies the resource ('pack file') and the scope of validation checks.

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 ('without importing it'), implying it's for pre-import validation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'import_pack' for comparison, though the distinction is strongly implied.

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