chat_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that this is a read operation, reveals that busy=true is included while the debate/single is still running, and explains the non-blocking polling use case. It could mention error behavior or not-found cases, but the core runtime behavior is transparent.

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?

Two dense sentences carry all the essential information with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by a concise behavioral note about busy polling. Every sentence 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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the contents of the response, and the polling behavior that matters to clients. It doesn't spell out edge cases like invalid thread_id, but the description is otherwise complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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%: the only parameter, thread_id, is described as 'Chat thread id from chat_send'. The tool description does not add meaning beyond this, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Read one chat thread', and specifies exactly what is included (messages, speakers, pending approval). It distinguishes itself from siblings like chat_list by emphasizing 'one' thread and by mentioning the busy polling behavior tied to chat_send.

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 gives practical usage context: clients can use chat_get to poll for busy=false while a debate/single is still running, instead of blocking on chat_send wait. It doesn't explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusion cases, but the polling guidance makes the intended use clear.

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