bluesky_post_thread

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that data is public and sourced from a credential-free AppView API, which signals read-only, no-auth access. It also explains the reply-tree behavior including parent chains. Missing are pagination, rate limits, and error handling, but the core safety profile is covered.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase earns its place. No filler or redundant content.

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?

Without an output schema, the description provides a high-level return summary (post, nested replies, parent chain) and the depth behavior. It lacks default depth and error details, but for a simple two-parameter tool this is reasonably complete.

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 100%, with both uri and depth already documented (at:// URI format and depth range 1-10). The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond echoing 'depth levels deep', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 returns a Bluesky post along with its reply tree, including parent chains when the post is a reply. This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from sibling Bluesky tools like bluesky_author_feed (feeds) and bluesky_profile (profile).

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 usage for retrieving a post and its nested replies, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as bluesky_author_feed or threads_post_replies. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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