Show Communication Thread

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying the return format (JSON object) and the Procore API endpoint, providing context beyond what annotations offer. No contradictions.

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 three sentences long, front-loading the purpose. It could be more concise by merging the second sentence with the first, but it's not overly verbose.

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 retrieval tool with complete schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the basic purpose and API. However, it does not explain the pagination parameters (page, per_page) in the context of a 'show' operation, which could be confusing.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description lists required parameters but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 shows detailed information for a specific email communication thread, using the verb 'shows' and specifying the resource as 'email communication thread'. It also mentions it fetches full details by identifier. Although it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'show_communication', the name and description are specific enough.

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 indicates when to use it ('to fetch the full details of a specific Emails by its identifier'), but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling communication tools.

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