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 useful behaviors: 'Only includes user and assistant messages', 'Supports pagination for long threads', and explains the include_tool_calls option. However, it does not explicitly state read-only safety, error handling, or whether messages are returned in chronological order (though 'root-to-leaf path' implies structural order).

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose, followed by behavioral notes and a clearly formatted Args list. It is appropriately sized given the need to document 6 parameters, and every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's core function, filtering behavior, pagination, and parameter semantics. Given an output schema exists (so return format is handled) and no annotations are provided, it includes enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though it could add a note about sorting order or error cases.

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%, but the description's Args section thoroughly explains every parameter with added meaning: limit has 'max 200', offset is 'Skip first N messages', leaf_uuid 'Empty for the primary (latest) thread', session_id 'UUID (or prefix)', project 'Optional project slug', and include_tool_calls 'Show tool names used in assistant messages'.

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 'Get a conversation thread (root-to-leaf path through the tree)', providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_tree (which likely returns the entire tree) by emphasizing 'root-to-leaf path' and 'Only includes user and assistant messages'.

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 single conversation thread, with details like 'leaf_uuid empty for the primary (latest) thread'. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as get_tree or get_forks, or state when to prefer this tool over them.

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