get_thought

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states what is returned but does not explicitly say that it is a read-only operation or mention any side effects, permissions, or error conditions. While 'get' implies read-only, explicit transparency is lacking.

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, tight sentence that delivers the essential information without fluff. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the input and the expected return contents. It does not discuss when to choose this over similar tools, but the simplicity of the tool makes the description adequate.

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 coverage is 100% (thought_id is described as 'The thought ID to retrieve'). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the ID refers to a thought, but this is already evident from the parameter name and schema description. 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('thought by ID'), and details exactly what is returned (content blocks, classification, category, streams). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_thoughts and search_thoughts, which serve different retrieval purposes.

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 phrase 'specific thought by ID' implies the primary use case: when you have a known thought ID and need its full details. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like search_thoughts or list_thoughts, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to choose this tool.

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