Get DM Conversation

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description aligns by using the verb 'Read'. It goes beyond annotations by detailing the return structure ('Dict with url, sections...') and the one-of parameter requirement, which is useful behavioral context.

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 organized with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse, and the opening sentence is concise. It could be slightly shorter by removing the ctx line, but it remains efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers the key aspects: identification, limit, and return format. It lacks potential edge-case details like what happens if both identifiers are provided, but this is a minor gap.

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 input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fills the gap by explaining thread_id, username, and limit, including the default and range for limit. It also mentions ctx, a parameter not present in the schema, which adds completeness.

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 opens with 'Read a specific DM conversation', which clearly states the verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like get_direct_inbox, but the qualifier 'specific' distinguishes it from list-type tools.

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 instructs to 'Provide either username or thread_id to identify the conversation', which is clear guidance on prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_direct_inbox or send_dm, so it lacks exclusions.

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