uc_thread

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety bar is low. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: posts are truncated at a per-post character budget, and pagination semantics on long-lived threads. It does not discuss rate limits or return shape, but the output schema covers the latter.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence, then a clean per-argument list where every entry earns its place. The prose is slightly verbose but no sentence is wasted or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and all three parameters are fully documented along with page-vs-last tradeoffs. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 carry the full burden, and it does: path is defined with a concrete example format and its source tools, page accepts an integer or "last"/-1 with a meaningful default, and chars is explained as a truncation budget with guidance on when to raise it.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource — 'Read the posts of one UnknownCheats thread' — and adds the date-stamping scope. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like uc_search or uc_fetch beyond noting where the path format comes from, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiating.

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?

It gives actionable context: use page "last" or -1 for current content because page 1 on an old thread is likely stale, and raise chars when a post holds needed code. It stops short of naming alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, so it is strong context without explicit routing.

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