iris_get_thread

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares read-only safety, chronological ordering, deduplication via unique body text, and warns that message text is untrusted. It stops short of describing truncation/pagination behavior, but the output schema covers return structure.

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?

Four short sentences, with the primary action and scope front-loaded. Every sentence adds distinct value, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Core behavior is well specified and an output schema exists, so return documentation is not required. However, the meaning of max_chars_each is missing entirely, and for a thread-reading tool that could return large bodies, that is a meaningful gap.

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. It clarifies the role of conversation_id ('every message sharing conversation_id'), but says nothing about max_chars_each, its default of 4000, or how it affects message content.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Read' and the resource 'a whole conversation', then precisely defines scope as 'every message sharing conversation_id, from any folder'. This clearly distinguishes it from single-message tools like iris_get_message and search tools among the 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 context is clear: use this when you need the full thread rather than a single message. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving selection to inference.

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