read_thread

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says it reads replies and gives a limit range, but does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior, permission requirements, or error behavior for invalid thread_ts.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose before the argument list. The Args format is efficient, though it reads more like a docstring than agent-facing guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a read tool with no annotations, the description lacks usage criteria and behavioral details such as reply ordering or pagination beyond the limit parameter.

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, and it does: it explains workspace as a configured name, channel formats (C/G/D IDs or '#general'), thread_ts as the parent message timestamp, and limit bounds (1-1000). Only the limit default of 200 is omitted.

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 states a clear verb and resource: read all replies in a thread. It distinguishes itself implicitly from read_channel, but does not explicitly differentiate from search_messages or explain when a thread read is preferable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use read_thread versus siblings like read_channel or search_messages. The description only lists arguments, leaving usage conditions entirely implied.

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