List DM inbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states this is a read operation and discloses the required OAuth scope. It could add detail about ordering or pagination, but for a simple read-only list tool the disclosure is adequate.

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?

Two short sentences deliver purpose, scope, and auth requirement without waste. Every phrase adds value and the description is front-loaded with the action verb.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, the scope, and the required permission. The only minor gap is not explicitly differentiating from the similarly named list_dm_events sibling.

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 input schema fully describes the single optional maxResults parameter including default and maximum, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, matching the baseline for high 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 reads recent DM events across all conversations (inbox view), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_dm_conversation_events by emphasizing the all-conversation inbox scope.

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 gives clear usage context (inbox view, all conversations) and a required prerequisite (dm.read scope). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrasing implicitly separates this from per-conversation event listing.

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