get_thread

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it reconstructs across folder/INBOX/Sent, uses Message-ID/In-Reply-To/References with subject fallback, returns chronological results, and includes snippets. It does not discuss limits or output shape beyond snippets, but it adds meaningful context.

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 two compact sentences with the core action and scope front-loaded. Every phrase contributes useful information about scope, threading mechanism, fallback, ordering, and snippet output.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is reconstructed, how threading is determined, and that results are chronological with snippets. Minor gaps remain around output detail and limits, but the essential call context is present.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description clarifies that the id can be any message in the conversation, but adds no additional parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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, "Reconstruct," and resource, "the conversation around a message," and clarifies the scope across folder, INBOX, and Sent. It distinguishes itself implicitly from single-message tools like read_message by emphasizing conversation reconstruction, but it does not explicitly name siblings.

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 usage is implied: use this to reconstruct a conversation around a message. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives such as read_message for a single message or search_messages for discovery.

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