get_thread_details

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the return type (dictionary) and the inclusion of an excerpt, but lacks error behavior, permission requirements, or limitations of the excerpt.

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?

Well-structured with Args and Returns sections; concise and to the point. The Args line repeats the parameter name but adds necessary context, so no wasted words.

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?

For a simple one-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description provides adequate operational details. However, it lacks usage guidance and edge-case behavior, making it minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description clearly explains message_id as 'Email message ID of the thread,' adding meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Message Id' title. Essential parameter is well-defined.

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?

Clear, specific verb 'retrieve' with resource 'LKML thread' and output details ('full details and body excerpt'). Distinguishes itself from siblings like get_doc_details and get_commit_details by its unique target.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_lkml. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a message_id from a search) or exclusions.

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