get_dm_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (e.g., use of max_id), or whether the conversation is returned in full or partial.

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 sentence, which is too brief to be useful. It under-specifies the tool's behavior and parameters, making it more incomplete than concise.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not mention what data is returned (e.g., messages, metadata). For a tool retrieving conversation history, essential context such as pagination support and result structure is missing.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the purpose of 'max_id' (likely a pagination cursor) or clarify that 'user_id' is required. No additional meaning is added beyond the parameter names.

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 clearly states the verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'DM conversation history with a specific user'. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which are focused on tweets, bookmarks, and user profiles, not DMs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage. It simply states the action taken.

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