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 describes the tool as listing pending DM requests, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it marks messages as read, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format is. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second sentence explains the parameter concisely. There is no wasted text, and the structure efficiently conveys essential information in two sentences.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), 1 parameter with good description coverage, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details like authentication needs or rate limits. For a read operation with output schema, it's adequate but could be more informative about operational context.

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 adds meaning for the single parameter 'count' by explaining it as 'Number of DM events to scan (1-100, default 50).' This clarifies the parameter's role and constraints beyond the schema, which only provides type and default. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the description compensates well, though it doesn't detail what 'scan' entails.

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: 'List pending DM message requests — messages from people you haven't replied to.' It specifies the verb ('list') and resource ('pending DM message requests'), and distinguishes it from siblings like x_dm_inbox or x_list_dms by focusing on unread/unreplied messages. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from x_read_dm or x_dm_read_conversation, which might also involve DM interactions.

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 specifying 'pending DM message requests — messages from people you haven't replied to,' suggesting it's for reviewing unreplied DMs. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like x_dm_inbox (which might list all DMs) or x_read_dm (which might mark as read). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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