x-ai-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool filters out unanswered message requests and scans DM events, which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or response format, leaving behavioral gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized.

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 (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics well. However, with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details like response format hints, though the output schema mitigates this gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'count' parameter's semantics: it defines the number of DM events to scan, specifies the range (1-100), default (50), and clarifies that higher values yield more conversations. This adds significant meaning beyond the basic schema.

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 ('List your actual DM conversations') and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it filters out unanswered message requests, unlike 'x_dm_inbox' or 'x_message_requests'. It uses a precise verb ('List') and resource ('DM conversations').

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 by stating it filters out unanswered message requests, implying when to use this tool (for replied conversations) versus alternatives like 'x_message_requests'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, keeping it at a 4.

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