ariel_get_post_thread

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small behavioral detail by specifying that the response includes parents and replies, but it does not disclose anything about depth limits, URL handling, or output behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The core resource and scope are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only retrieval tool, the description plus fully documented parameters is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. There is no output schema, but the description communicates the essential return concept (post plus parents and replies) adequately.

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 100%, so all four parameters (uri, depth, format, parentHeight) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about how parameters interact or affect the returned thread.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('a post and its thread'), with a parenthetical clarifying that the thread includes both parents and replies. It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_posts or get_timeline, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 implies the tool is for fetching a single post along with its conversation context, which is enough to infer a typical use case. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related tools such as ariel_get_posts or ariel_get_timeline.

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