buzz_dm_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' indicates a read-only operation, and the stated output fields clarify what is returned, but the description does not mention response format, ordering, pagination, or authentication/authorization requirements.

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?

A single sentence delivers the purpose and the returned content with no wasted words. The key idea is front-loaded and the parenthetical gives the essential output detail.

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 is simple (zero parameters, no output schema), and the description supplies the main missing context: what items are listed and what each list entry contains. It could add richer guidance on using the returned dm channel id with sibling tools, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is little for the description to add. The description's 'your' scoping is a small but useful clarification beyond the empty schema; baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('your direct-message conversations') and states the key returned fields ('other participant + dm channel id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like buzz_dm_read, buzz_dm_open, and buzz_dm_send, which act on individual DMs rather than listing them.

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 phrase 'List your direct-message conversations' provides clear context: use this tool to enumerate existing DM conversations before reading or sending to one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intent is unambiguous among the sibling tools.

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