get-dm-messages

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

The description states only that it retrieves messages from a specific DM conversation, adding little beyond the tool name. With no annotations, it does not disclose pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, error behavior, or that this is a read-only operation, though 'get' implies a read.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, no filler. It conveys the core purpose in eight words and earns its place.

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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it names the action and target. However, without annotations or an output schema, it leaves unspecified return format and ordering, which would be useful. Overall it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 itself adds no parameter information, but the input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions: convoId identifies the conversation (and references get-conversations) and limit controls fetch count. Therefore the schema carries the semantic weight, giving the baseline score.

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 the specific verb 'Get' paired with the resource 'messages from a specific DM conversation' and scopes it to Bluesky, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-conversations (lists conversations) and send-dm (sends messages).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided in the description. The only usage hint ('get from get-conversations') lives in the parameter schema, not the tool description, so an agent selecting this tool gets no context about prerequisites or when to prefer it.

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