buzz_dm_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the target can be resolved from several identifier forms, but says nothing about pagination behavior, the 200-item cap, ordering, or whether reading a non-existent DM creates anything — meaningful gaps left for a read tool with an open-world hint.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The identifier details are placed in a compact parenthetical, though folding `limit` into that same clause would have cost nothing extra.

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?

With no output schema and no required parameters, the description covers the essentials for choosing a target but leaves the mutation-adjacent ambiguity (does `to` open a DM if none exists?) and the `limit` parameter unexplained. Adequate to call the tool, but an agent could easily call it wrong with both identifiers or miss the result cap.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning; it does well for `to` (npub / hex / email / exact display-name) and `channel` (dm channel id). It completely omits `limit` (1–200), never states which identifier wins if both are passed, and does not note that all three parameters are optional.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read a direct-message conversation'), which is clearly distinct from buzz_dm_send or buzz_dm_list. It does not, however, differentiate itself from buzz_dm_list (which enumerates conversations) or buzz_thread_read, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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 second sentence gives guidance on how to address the conversation via `to` or `channel`, which implies the tool is used once you know the counterpart. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. buzz_dm_list (discover conversations) or buzz_dm_open (start one), and no statement on what happens if neither identifier is supplied.

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