Read thread

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are bounded, chronologically ordered, deduplicated to the root message, and continuable via cursor. It stops short of auth requirements or rate limits, so not a 5.

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, zero filler; the core behavior leads and the pagination instruction follows. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers ordering, thread rooting, and continuation. What's missing is the relationship to sibling read tools and any claim about visibility or auth scope, but for a simple paginated read the definition is close to sufficient.

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 only 33% — message_id is documented (including the 8-hex-prefix rule) but limit and cursor are bare. The description partially compensates by implying the bound and explaining cursor resumption, but it never states the 200-item cap or the prefix convention, so the schema still carries the key detail.

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 ... public conversation') and adds the differentiator that it resolves a reply to its root, which separates it from the many other read_* siblings. It doesn't explicitly name which sibling to use instead, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

'Resume with the returned cursor' gives concrete guidance for paginated continuation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus read_conversation, read_messages, or read_feed, so the routing decision is left to inference despite the crowded sibling namespace.

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