list_thread

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered structurally, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of whether replies are paginated, whether 'limit' applies to replies or messages, or what the response looks like. For a thread-fetch the shape of the result is the main thing an agent needs, and it is unstated.

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?

It is only four words, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency; the fragment is not even a complete sentence and carries no front-loaded verb or scope. There is nothing extraneous to cut, but the content needed to act is simply absent.

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?

With a single required id, no output schema, and readOnly already asserted by annotations, the definition is thin but not actively dangerous to call. Still, a thread-listing tool with pagination and workspace scoping should say what is returned and how limit/workspace behave, which this does not.

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 only 33%: messageId is annotated (loosely), while both 'limit' (default 50) and 'workspace' are entirely undocumented. The description says nothing about any of the three parameters, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap and gives no clue whether limit bounds replies, messages, or both.

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 is a noun fragment, "Message with its thread replies," with no verb stating what the tool does to the message or its replies. It hints at the returned content (a message plus replies) but does not differentiate the tool from siblings such as list_messages or list_comments, which the messageId schema text itself groups it with.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. The only steering signal in the whole definition is the messageId schema note listing it under list_messages, list_comments, list_thread, which does not tell an agent which to pick.

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