build_conversation_thread

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: returns a flat list sorted by post_no, each post includes reply_to_post_no for tree reconstruction, and limits to recent messages via 'limit' parameter. No behavioral gaps remain.

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?

Description is well-structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loading the purpose. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, earning a high score for clarity and organization.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (context signal), the description explains the return payload structure adequately. No missing information for effective use; all aspects are covered including parameters, behavior, and output format.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains all three parameters: chat_id, root_message_id, and limit with default. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 verb 'Build' and resource 'conversation thread', specifying it starts from a root message and recursively retrieves all replies. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_replies_to_post' which likely returns only direct replies.

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 explains that the tool returns all replies recursively, implying its use for full thread retrieval. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or comparison to alternatives, but the sibling list provides context.

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