get_dms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'recent', which hints at ordering/limiting but does not clarify return format, pagination, whether conversations are sorted, whether message content is included, or side effects (e.g., marking as read). An agent cannot anticipate the behavior beyond a basic read operation.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no fluff or repetition. It could arguably include more context, but as far as conciseness and structure, it earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema and minimal annotations, so the description should compensate by explaining what a returned conversation looks like or any relevant edge cases. It does not. An agent knows it gets recent DM conversations and can pass an optional limit, but has no idea of the response shape, ordering, or whether it includes metadata or content. This is a meaningful gap for a simple tool.

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 already fully documents the only parameter (limit) with type and default value, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not mention or explain any parameters, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting. No additional semantic meaning is added.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('direct message conversations'), and a scope ('recent', 'bot has had'). The term 'conversations' distinguishes it from sibling get_messages (which likely returns individual messages) and other sibling tools like get_servers/get_channels. Purpose is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_messages or get_messages. There is no mention of which use cases this serves or when a sibling would be more appropriate. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and description.

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