nostr_list_dms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains the decryption process (auto-selects NIP-44 or NIP-04 based on ciphertext), error handling (per-event failures), and sorting (oldest-first). It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but the core behavioral traits are well disclosed.

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 a single, coherent paragraph of three sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. It is slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value (decryption behavior, error handling, sorting). Could be trimmed slightly but remains 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?

Given the tool's complexity (bidirectional DM fetch, decryption, error handling), the description covers the core behavior and return format (sorted oldest-first). No output schema exists, but the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation. Minor gap: does not specify whether the decrypted content is returned as plaintext strings.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds minimal nuance: it mentions that limit is per direction and since is a Unix timestamp. This is helpful but does not significantly extend the schema's meaning, so baseline score 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's action ('Fetch + decrypt the DM thread') and specifies the resource ('between the configured signer and a counterparty'). It distinguishes from siblings like nostr_send_dm (sending) and nostr_decrypt_dm (single decryption) by describing a bidirectional, sorted thread get with decryption.

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 usage for retrieving DM threads with a specific counterparty, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nostr_query_events or nostr_decrypt_dm. No when-not or conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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