Get thread

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a read-only operation, so the description adds modest value by specifying what is retrieved: 'settings, state, and counts.' However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as permission requirements, the meaning of 'state,' or whether the response includes only summary data. No contradiction with annotations.

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, compact sentence that directly states the tool's output. Every word contributes meaning, and it is front-loaded with the core idea. No padding or 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 tool is simple and has full parameter documentation, but without an output schema the description carries more responsibility for explaining return shape. It mentions 'settings, state, and counts' but leaves the specifics (e.g., which settings, what state values, what counts) undefined. For a one-required-parameter getter, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters: 'Guild (server) name or ID. Omit to use the default guild.' and 'Thread name or ID.' The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra semantic value.

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 identifies the resource as a single thread and enumerates the aspects returned: 'settings, state, and counts.' Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve,' the title 'Get thread' supplies the action. It distinguishes from list_threads (which returns multiple threads) and update_thread/delete_thread.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_threads or get_channel. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a sibling would be more appropriate. The intended use is only implied by the resource name.

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