get_dm_channels

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It introduces the qualifier 'open' but does not explain what 'open' means, how results are ordered, whether pagination is involved, or what fields each returned conversation contains. The description adds little beyond the basic action.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description provides the basic action but lacks important context such as the return format, what qualifies as 'open', and any behavioral caveats. It is minimally viable but leaves the agent to guess at response details.

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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the baseline rule, the score is 4 because there are no parameter details to add. The description correctly does not attempt to explain non-existent parameters.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('open DM conversations'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like list_guilds and list_channels, and there is no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for selecting it over other list tools.

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