summarize_threadOne-paragraph summary of the thread, oriented to the most actionable signal (interest, complaint, question, unsubscribe).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| threadId | Yes | thread id from list_inbox |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / threadId / descriptionAdded value: +"thread id from list_inbox"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the summary's focus on actionable signals, which is valuable information beyond the annotations.
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 of 18 words, front-loaded with 'One-paragraph summary', and contains no filler or 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?
With a simple one-parameter input, annotations covering safety, and an output schema (not shown but present), the description sufficiently explains the tool's output and purpose without needing to detail return values.
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 sole parameter threadId is described in the schema as 'thread id from list_inbox' (100% coverage). The description adds no further semantic detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'summarize' and the resource 'inbox thread', and specifies the output is a one-paragraph summary oriented to actionable signals, distinguishing it from raw content tools like read_thread.
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 implies usage for getting a quick overview (one-paragraph, actionable signals) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like read_thread for raw details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.