get_thread

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states this is a read operation (non-destructive), covers multiple accounts, and lists returned data (messages, bodies, attachment metadata). It does not mention whether reading marks as read or any rate limits, but overall provides good transparency for a read action.

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 sentences, efficient and front-loaded with scope and action. No extraneous words.

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 no annotations, the description covers the tool's function, scope, and return data adequately for a read tool. Could mention authentication or pagination but these are not critical for a single thread read.

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 67%, so baseline is 3. The description does not explicitly describe parameters but contextualizes that you need a threadId to specify which thread and that includeFullBodies controls detail. It adds moderate value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Read' and resource 'full email thread', specifying it includes all messages, bodies, and attachment metadata. It also clarifies multi-account scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_message (single message) and search_threads (searching).

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 usage when you need full thread content but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_message or search_threads. No direct mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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