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 useful behavior: the canonical fix is returned first, followed by top posts, and `full=True` expands every post. However, it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what happens when thread_id is invalid.

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, both earning their place, with the read behavior front-loaded and the follow-up action second. No filler.

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 structure needn't be explained; the description covers the useful ordering nuance and the follow-up action. Adequate for a simple two-parameter read tool, with only auth/error behavior unaddressed.

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 clarifies `full` partially ('full=True for every post'), implying the default truncates posts, and links `thread_id` to search results — but leaves the exact truncation behavior and id format unspecified.

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 and resource ('Read a thread') and ties the input to the sibling that produces it ('found by `search`'), which cleanly separates it from search, list_threads, and create_thread. It stops short of an explicit contrast statement, but the workflow linkage is clear.

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?

Gives concrete workflow context: obtain the thread via `search`, then read it, and if the fix works call `mark_solved`. That names a real follow-up alternative, though it doesn't say when NOT to use this tool (e.g. vs list_threads for browsing).

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