get_thread

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so excellently. It reveals that inbound text has quoted history and signatures stripped, that raw_text holds the untrimmed body as a fallback, and that spf_verdict and dkim_verdict must be checked before trusting a reply's sender. These are non-obvious processing details that materially affect how an agent interprets results.

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 three sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the most important processing caveat and then a security directive. Every sentence earns its place and the structure moves from general to specific.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers the key response aspects: chronological transcript, stripped vs raw text, and authentication verdicts. It is nearly complete, but it does not mention pagination, error behavior, or any other top-level thread fields. This is a minor gap given the tool's low complexity.

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 schema already documents the sole parameter `id` with the description 'Thread id', and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the id parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly identifies the tool as reading a conversation and presenting it as a chronological transcript of outbound and inbound messages. The verb 'Read' plus the resource 'conversation' unambiguously differentiates this from list_threads (listing) and reply_to_message (writing), making sibling discrimination immediate even without naming alternatives.

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 this tool — whenever you need the full thread transcript — but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like list_threads, nor does it state when not to use it. The usage context is clear enough to infer, but there is no direct guidance on choosing between get_thread and other conversation-related tools.

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