get_thread

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return content (replies, vote counts, resolved status) and positions it as a read operation, but it doesn't state authorization requirements, error behavior, or potential side effects (though likely none). It adds value but leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff: the first states the output, the second gives actionable usage examples. Every phrase 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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, use cases, and return content. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional context.

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 fully documents the single parameter (thread_id as a UUID string), so the description adds no extra parameter-level meaning. Baseline of 3 applies since schema coverage is 100%.

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 'full content of a thread' with explicit deliverables: all replies, vote counts, and resolved status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_threads (searching) and reply_to_thread (adding replies), so an agent can select it for read-only retrieval.

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 gives explicit use cases: reading an accepted answer before applying a fix, or checking if a thread has received replies. While it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient for typical read operations.

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