get_dm_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (cursor usage), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what 'messages' include (e.g., text, media, timestamps). For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get messages') and specifies the context ('in a DM conversation'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally viable but has clear gaps. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the burden, but the description lacks crucial context like pagination behavior, error handling, and differentiation from siblings. It's adequate for basic understanding but insufficient for robust agent decision-making.

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 compensate but adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain what 'dm_conversation_id' represents, how 'count' affects retrieval (default 100, max?), or how 'cursor' enables pagination. The baseline would be 1 for complete lack of parameter info, but the tool name implies the required ID, raising it slightly to 2.

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 ('Get') and resource ('messages in a DM conversation'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_dm_conversations' (which likely lists conversations rather than messages within one) or 'get_conversation' (which might handle public conversations vs DMs), leaving some ambiguity about sibling relationships.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid DM conversation ID), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'get_conversation' or 'send_dm', leaving the agent to infer usage context entirely from the tool name and parameters.

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