team_import_thread_page

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the description carries real weight: it discloses that no model is started and no host API is called, that reasoning and credentials are never imported, and that snapshots stay marked agent-relayed and possibly truncated. This is genuine context beyond the annotations and is consistent with them (a non-destructive write).

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?

Dense but every sentence adds a distinct constraint (no model, no host call, exact threadId, excluded content, snapshot marking). Front-loaded enough, though the telegraphic style is harder to parse than plain prose.

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?

Behavior is well covered for a complex, multi-parameter tool with no output schema, but with 10 params at 0% coverage and no explanation of the cursor/nextCursor paging contract or evidence/readAt fields, an agent cannot confidently populate the input.

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% across 10 parameters. The description only maps loosely to content types (messages/status/tool summaries) and threadId binding; boardId, memberId, recordId, readAt, evidence, cursor, nextCursor, and hostId remain entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (relay/import) and resource (a bounded page actually returned by the read_thread host tool), scoping it to an explicitly bound member. It distinguishes itself from a full snapshot by stressing this is a page, not a complete transcript, though it doesn't name a sibling tool directly.

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?

Implies the workflow (must be a page already returned by codex-app-tools.read_thread, exact threadId binding required) but never says when to prefer this over team_snapshot or team_read_records, nor when not to use it. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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