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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads messages, implying a read-only operation, but does not cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the output contains. This is a significant gap 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by parameter details. It uses two sentences efficiently, with no wasted words, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter explanations more seamlessly.

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 that there is an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a read operation tool.

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 meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'conversation_id' is for a specific DM conversation and 'count' specifies the number of messages with a range and default, clarifying usage that the schema alone does not provide. With 2 parameters, this compensates well for the low schema coverage.

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 as 'Read messages from a specific DM conversation,' which includes a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('DM conversation'). It distinguishes from some siblings like x_dm_send or x_delete_tweet but not explicitly from x_dm_inbox or x_list_dms, which may also involve DM-related operations, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to choose this over siblings like x_dm_inbox or x_list_dms, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context implied at best.

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