Get Relay Message Thread

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries little burden for side effects. It adds no behavioral context beyond the literal statement, such as whether the root message is included in results, how order and cursor behave, or what the open-world hint implies for live threads. This is adequate but adds no value beyond what the annotations already provide.

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?

A single eight-word sentence with the action verb front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized for the information it aims to convey.

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 no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and no explanation of thread membership or pagination behavior, the one-sentence description leaves significant gaps. The rich annotations cover safety but not the operational details an agent needs to invoke this correctly versus relay_list_messages or relay_get_message.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies the role of message_id as the root anchor. The semantics of limit, order, and cursor are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving an agent to guess pagination and ordering defaults.

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 ('List') and a defined resource ('the thread rooted at one Relay Message'), making the core operation identifiable. It is not a tautology and conveys that the tool retrieves a threaded conversation anchored to a message_id. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like relay_list_messages or relay_get_message, which serve adjacent lookups.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the 15 siblings, particularly the closely related relay_list_messages and relay_get_message. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of alternatives, so an agent must infer the distinction from the title and naming alone.

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