discord_read_dms

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying the return shape ({ messages: [...] }), included fields, and chronological ordering. This is sufficient for a simple read operation.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, then provides return format and read-only status. Every sentence adds necessary information.

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 output schema exists and this is a straightforward read-only DM fetch, the description covers the essential context: what is read, the scope, message ordering, and return structure. No critical information for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 100%, and both parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond restating the DM conversation context, so the schema carries the burden and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read the most recent messages from the bot's DM conversation with a user.' It uniquely identifies DM scope and distinguishes this from sibling tools like discord_read_messages, which presumably handles channel messages. It also states ordering (oldest-to-newest), removing ambiguity about message order.

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 clearly implies this is the tool for reading a user DM conversation, which is enough context for an agent to select it over most siblings. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the DM-specific wording and sibling names make the intended use fairly clear.

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