Get DM messages

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

Annotations already cover the read-only and open-world behavior, and the description adds useful ordering context ('newest page first') and scopes the read to one DM thread. It does not contradict the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core action and ordering, and the usage pointer earns its place. No filler or repetition of schema field definitions.

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 simple paginated read tool with an output schema and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description covers the purpose, usage trigger, and behavioral nuance. Required parameters and pagination bounds are already in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that conversation is a direct-message conversation and that page delivery is newest-first, which gives meaning to page/page_size behavior.

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 names a specific verb and resource: read the messages in one direct-message conversation, and specifies the page ordering ('newest page first'). It clearly separates this from listing conversations in the sibling set by scoping to a single conversation.

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?

It gives an explicit use context: review the thread before replying with repovive_send_direct_message. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or directly contrast with list_conversations, but the single-conversation scope makes the intended use clear.

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