get_dm_history

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that messages are private and warns about anti-spam, but does not detail rate limits, authentication needs, or exact return behavior. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Concise and well-structured: purpose statement, warning, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value, no 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?

Covers key aspects: purpose, parameters, and a critical warning. Has output schema (not shown) to explain return values. Missing info on pagination limits or default behavior, but mostly complete for a retrieval tool.

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%, yet description thoroughly explains both parameters: screen_name as 'Twitter username (without @)' and max_id for pagination with specific guidance on passing next_cursor. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Get DM conversation history with a user,' specifying the action (get) and resource (DM conversation history). It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_dm and delete_dm.

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?

Includes explicit warnings: 'Do not bulk-call. X has aggressive anti-spam on DMs and may suspend the account.' This provides important usage context, though it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when not to use.

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