get_thread

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds behavioral context by stating 'chronologically' and 'full discussion', which helps set expectations. However, it doesn't disclose whether full email bodies are included, pagination behavior, or any safety/permission traits. It is a read operation implied by 'get', but more transparency would be better.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word adds value without redundancy, making it highly concise.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides enough context for basic usage. It clarifies the chronological ordering and thread scope. However, it could be more descriptive about the return format (e.g., whether it includes attachments, bodies, or metadata), but this is a minor gap.

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 100% because threadId has a clear description. The tool description does not add anything beyond the schema's parameter description, so the baseline of 3 applies. No additional parameter meaning is provided by the description.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('conversation thread') and clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_email (single email) and search_emails (search-based retrieval). It also states the output scope ('all emails' in thread, chronological order), making the tool's purpose 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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when needing the entire conversation thread in chronological order. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to differentiate from getting a single email or searching. No misleading guidance.

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