reddit_get_thread

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

The annotations already indicate a read-only and non-destructive tool, and the description adds concrete behavioral detail: it cannot post, comment, vote, edit, delete, follow, or message on Reddit, and no such code exists. It also discloses non-obvious behaviors such as refusing denied subreddits and deliberately avoiding full comment-tree fetches. These statements go beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 first two sentences are tightly scoped and front-loaded, which is good. However, the third paragraph about helpful participation, product promotion, and subreddit rules reads as general server policy rather than tool-specific call guidance. The description is not bloated, but this tangential policy text prevents it from being optimally concise.

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?

Given the read-only annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral limits well: bounded comments, denied subreddits, and no user actions performed on behalf of the caller. The major gap is parameter semantics, since an agent is left without guidance on how to construct the url or how max_depth and max_comments shape the request. Overall, it is complete for high-level behavior but not fully sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, yet the description does not explain the url, max_depth, or max_comments parameters, their formats, or how they interact. The phrase 'a bounded selection of comments (top-level, high-scoring, and any near the user's own replies)' provides selection behavior but does not map to parameter names or semantics. This is not enough to compensate for the complete absence of schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the minimum necessary context of one Reddit thread,' and then concretely defines what that includes: the post plus a bounded selection of comments. It also sets clear boundaries with 'Does not fetch entire comment trees,' which helps distinguish it from broader thread-fetching or scraping behaviors. Although no sibling tool is named, the scope is specific and non-tautological.

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 primary use case is clearly implied: retrieve a bounded read of a single Reddit thread. However, the description never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over siblings like reddit_search_posts, reddit_get_replies_to_me, or reddit_daily_digest, nor does it provide exclusion criteria beyond denied subreddits. The 'minimum necessary context' phrasing hints at efficiency, but the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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