discord_list_dms

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering ('recent-activity order'), returned data ('channel_id and whether they have unread messages'), and even signals possible incompleteness ('Reports whether the sidebar walk was complete'). It does not explicitly state side effects, but as a list operation the wording implies none.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the action and scope. Every clause adds operational meaning, 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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description names the returned fields and even includes a completion indicator. It could mention behavior on empty results or failed sidebar walks, but those are minor gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 both 'format' and 'unread_only' are already documented. The description adds some behavioral context about unread messages that aligns with unread_only, but it does not provide additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 action ('Lists') and scope ('open direct conversations in the sidebar'), with useful output details such as channel_id and unread status. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like discord_read_dm or discord_catch_up, which keeps it from a 5.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you need an overview of open DM conversations with their channel IDs and unread state. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, but the purpose strongly implies the appropriate use case.

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