buzz_dm_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation, which implies no destructive side effects, but it does not disclose auth requirements, error behavior, or whether reading affects read state. This is adequate but minimal.

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 primary action and immediately provides the key identification modes. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema properties.

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 description covers the core identification semantics but omits the purpose of `limit`, does not clarify return value shape despite lacking an output schema, and provides no guidance relative to sibling DM tools. It is usable but has clear gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `to` as npub/hex/email/exact display-name and `channel` as a DM channel id, adding real meaning. However, the `limit` parameter is completely unexplained, leaving a clear gap for a number parameter whose purpose is not obvious.

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 and resource: 'Read a direct-message conversation.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like buzz_dm_list, buzz_dm_send, and buzz_read by specifying the DM conversation scope and the identification methods.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: it is for reading a DM conversation, but it does not say when to prefer this over buzz_read or buzz_dm_list, nor does it mention any exclusions. The identification guidance ('Identify it by to or channel') is parameter-focused, not tool-selection guidance.

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