Get Thread Messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies read-only behavior but does not disclose permissions, error handling (e.g., invalid thread_id), or whether nested replies are included. Minimal transparency.

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?

Single sentence, clear and to the point. No redundant phrasing. Could be slightly expanded for completeness, but the conciseness is good.

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 no output schema and a simple parameter, the description is incomplete. It omits return format, pagination, sorting, or behavior for empty threads. The agent lacks critical context for reliable invocation.

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 covers 100% with a basic Thread ID description. The description adds the nuance 'directly attached to one thread,' which clarifies the scope of returned messages beyond the schema's generic term.

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 returns messages attached to a thread. It implies a read-only retrieval, distinguishing it from tools like post_message (create) and get_thread_context (different scope). However, 'directly attached' could be more precise but is sufficient.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_thread_context or add_team_member. Lacks context about prerequisites or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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