get_dm_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by explaining that max_id pages older messages, which is a behavioral trait not evident from the schema. However, it does not mention other behaviors like response format, ordering, or potential rate limits. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's function and pagination behavior in a compact form.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main action and pagination, but it does not describe what the response contains (e.g., message objects, timestamps) or any limitations. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this is a noticeable gap, but the description still provides the essential context for using the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that user_id is the user whose history is retrieved and that max_id is used for pagination to older messages. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could be more detailed about the exact format of max_id.

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 function: "Get direct-message history with a user id." This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like send_direct_message and search_users. The mention of max_id for pagination adds further specificity.

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 the primary use case: retrieving DM history for a given user. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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