buzz_dm_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the dual 'open or find' behavior and the returned channel id, but it does not say whether 'open' can create a channel, what happens if the person cannot be found, or any permission/rate-limit implications.

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 front-loaded sentence that covers the action, resource, return value, and required parameter format. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter semantics well. It does not elaborate on side effects or error cases, but the simple interface makes that a minor gap rather than a major omission.

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 only defines 'to' as a plain string; the description adds essential meaning by specifying accepted formats: npub / hex / email / exact display-name. This compensates for the 0 schema description coverage, though it could be more explicit about matching rules.

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?

States a specific operation ('Open (or find)'), the exact resource ('a 1:1 DM with a person'), and the expected output ('return its channel id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling DMs like buzz_dm_list, buzz_dm_read, and buzz_dm_send, which do not resolve a person to a channel.

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 clearly conveys the use case: call this when you need the channel id for a 1:1 DM with a specific person. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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