list_dms

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the record shape it returns (peer, online state, description, channel ID), which matters because there is no output schema.

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 with the core action first and the return shape compactly parenthesized. 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 zero-param read tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose and return fields, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Minor gaps: no mention of result volume/pagination or ordering.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify. The parenthetical instead documents the result tuple, which is a bonus rather than a parameter requirement.

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 verb+resource ("Lists my DMs") and goes further by naming the returned fields (peer, online state, description → channel ID). The resource itself (DMs) is naturally distinct from list_channels/list_servers/list_accounts, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 is only implied: the "→ channel ID" mapping hints that this is the way to discover channel IDs for downstream send/read/open_dm calls, but the description never states when to use this versus open_dm or the other list_* tools.

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