read_thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose result composition (canonical answer first, then top posts) and the effect of the full flag, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about access requirements, error cases, or what 'top posts' means.

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 short, front-loaded clauses with no wasted text; the primary purpose comes before the flag detail. Slightly telegraphic phrasing costs it the top score.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained, and this is a simple two-parameter read tool. Still, an agent gets no guidance on when the thread might not be readable or what determines 'top posts', leaving minor gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains that full=True returns every post, but adds no meaning for thread_id beyond what the name and required flag already convey. Partial compensation warrants a middle score.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read a thread') and adds the notable scope detail that output is ordered canonical answer first, then top posts. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling list_threads, but the singular resource makes the distinction inferable.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_threads or search, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the required thread_id.

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