Get Agora Thread

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds no behavioral detail beyond them—no return format, pagination, thread semantics, or permission requirements. With no output schema, more context would be valuable.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though it repeats the title closely and could add a brief qualifier without becoming 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 read tool with rich annotations and a fully documented parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, it leaves the agent without guidance on when to use it versus sibling Agora retrieval tools and does not describe the returned thread structure (no output schema exists).

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% and the single parameter message_id is documented as the root message ID. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('message thread') plus source ('Agora feed'). It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling read tools like get_agora_by_topic or get_agora_topics, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, conditions, or mention of alternatives such as get_agora_by_topic. The phrase 'from the Agora feed' implies context but does not tell the agent when to choose this tool over siblings.

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