sendook_get_thread

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that messages are returned 'in chronological order,' which is useful. No contradictions 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 relatively concise: two paragraphs followed by a bullet-list Args section. The primary purpose is stated upfront. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema but structurally clear. Every sentence adds value except perhaps the full parameter list could be omitted since it duplicates schema.

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 straightforward nature of a read-only thread retrieval, the description covers what is needed: what it returns (full thread, chronological order, format options). Annotations confirm idempotency and read-only. Output schema exists (though not shown) so return values are documented elsewhere. The description is sufficiently complete for agent usage.

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 has descriptions for all parameters, so schema description coverage is effectively high. The description's Args section mostly repeats schema info (inbox_id, thread_id, response_format) with some additional context like 'Output format: markdown or json'. Since the schema already covers parameter meaning, the description adds marginal value beyond providing a structured list. Baseline 3.

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 states the tool retrieves a full conversation thread with all messages in chronological order, using specific verbs ('Get', 'Returns'). It distinguishes from siblings like sendook_get_message (single message) and sendook_list_threads (list of threads) by specifying 'full 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 explicitly states it is 'Useful for understanding the full context of a conversation,' implying when to use. While it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, the context of sibling tools like sendook_list_threads and sendook_get_message implies proper usage. Could be improved with explicit prerequisites like 'first use list_threads to obtain thread IDs'.

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