get_replies

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions the limit parameter (max 200) but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether results are ordered, pagination, authentication needs, or error handling. Missing critical info for a read operation.

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 remarkably concise, using two sentences to state purpose and a clean arg list. Front-loaded with main action, no unnecessary words.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which need not explain return values), the description lacks details on result structure, ordering, or edge cases. It adequately explains parameters but leaves behavioral gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful explanations for all three parameters: chat (channel/group), message_id (ID of post/starting message), and limit (number of comments, capped at 200). Fully compensates for schema deficiency.

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 tool reads reply threads of a message, specifying use cases like channel posts and topic group replies. It uses a specific verb (read) and resource (reply thread), and distinguishes from sibling tools that fetch messages generally.

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 when to use (when needing replies to a message) but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools like get_messages or get_message_context.

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