get_dm_conversations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get your DM conversations', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (though hinted by 'cursor' parameter), or what data is returned. For a tool with two parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate, as it misses key operational details.

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 'Get your DM conversations' is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It wastes no words, making it appropriately concise. However, it could be more structured by including key details, but as-is, it earns a high score for brevity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter usage, behavioral traits, or differentiation from siblings, though the output schema mitigates the need to explain return values. This results in a minimal viable score, as it provides basic purpose but lacks depth for effective tool selection.

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, so parameters 'count' and 'cursor' are undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what 'count' limits (e.g., number of conversations) or how 'cursor' works for pagination. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this falls below the baseline of 3.

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 'Get your DM conversations' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('DM conversations'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'DM conversations' entails (e.g., metadata, messages, participants) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_dm_events', which might overlap in functionality. This vagueness prevents a higher score.

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, such as 'get_dm_events' or 'get_conversation'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone. This lack of explicit or implied guidance results in a minimal score.

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