Read a T3 thread

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It reveals it returns messages, session status, pending requests with requestIds needed for responses, and an activity overview, plus mentions pagination behavior. It implies read-only nature via 'Read' but does not describe side effects or error conditions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and wastes no words. It efficiently covers the tool's functionality and pagination hint.

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately outlines the response content (messages, session status, pending requests, activity) and pagination. It stops short of detailing the exact structure of each element, but this is sufficient for a read tool.

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 coverage is 100% for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, only contextualizing turnLimit as 'last N turns' and beforeCursor for pagination, which the schema already explains.

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 it reads a thread's recent conversation and lists specific content: messages, session status, pending requests with requestIds, and activity overview. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_threads or t3_status by focusing on the thread conversation itself.

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 provides clear context for using this tool to fetch a thread's conversation, including pagination via beforeCursor. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the context is unmistakable.

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