search_modules_dms

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

No annotations are provided. The description only mentions 'undocumented session endpoint,' hinting at potential instability but lacking details on authentication, rate limits, error behavior, or safety profile (e.g., destructive hint).

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?

Although the description is short, it is too brief to serve its purpose. It front-loads the core information but omits critical details about parameters and usage, making it under-specified rather than concisely effective.

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?

With three parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks essential behavioral and usage context (e.g., pagination, query format) that an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (query, cursor, count). The agent has no semantic understanding of these inputs beyond their types and required status.

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's purpose: search within direct messages only. It uses specific verbs ('search within') and resource ('direct messages only'), distinguishing it from broader sibling tools like search_messages and search_all.

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 implies scope ('only') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_messages for general search). No context about prerequisites or when not to use it.

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