get_thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only operation that returns all messages in a thread, but it does not mention return format, ordering, pagination, error behavior, or authentication requirements. For a simple retrieval tool this is adequate, but not rich.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler, placeholder, or redundant information. It immediately states the action and the required input.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers the essential purpose and input. It doesn't detail return value shape, but the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation make this acceptable. Could mention whether 'all messages' includes metadata or ordering, but overall it is complete enough for basic use.

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 schema fully documents the single parameter thread_id with a description, and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds only the phrase 'by thread ID,' which reinforces the parameter's role but doesn't provide additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 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 clearly uses the verb 'Get' with the specific resource 'all messages in a conversation thread' and identifies the input mechanism 'by thread ID.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like read_messages by focusing on a single thread rather than general message retrieval.

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 that this tool should be used when you have a thread ID and want all messages in that thread, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer get_thread over read_messages or provide any exclusion criteria. The context is understandable but not explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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