Read the messages in one Bluesky conversation

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds substantial behavioral details: it reverses the wire order to present chronologically, indicates whether each message was sent by this account, and distinguishes deleted messages from empty ones. These are non-obvious traits an agent must know to interpret results correctly, and none 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then adds three essential behavioral nuances (chronological order, sender indication, deleted-message handling), and ends with the convoId source. Every sentence carries unique, valuable information with no filler, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It covers ordering, sender info, deleted handling, and the source of convoId. It doesn't describe the output format, but with no output schema that isn't required. A tie to pagination via cursor is implied by the description's mention of walking back through older messages, though not explicitly explained here (it is in the schema). Given the complexity, this is slightly incomplete but adequate.

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%, so parameters (convoId, limit, cursor) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond reinforcing that convoId comes from list_bluesky_convos. It doesn't explain limit/cursor semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool 'Read a Bluesky DM conversation in CHRONOLOGICAL order', specifying the verb (read), resource (Bluesky DM conversation), and a key distinguishing behavior (chronological order). It effectively differentiates from siblings like list_bluesky_convos (lists conversations) and send_bluesky_dm (sends messages) without ambiguity.

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 provides usage context by explicitly pointing to 'Get a convoId from list_bluesky_convos', indicating the prerequisite tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for reading rather than sending or listing. A score below 4 would penalize the missing exclusion, but the clear purpose makes it largely self-evident.

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