get_thread

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is to add operational detail, which it does: results are ordered oldest-first and each message is reduced to new text with quotes stripped. It does not mention truncation behavior when max_chars_per_message cuts a message off, which is the one behavioral gap.

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 dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource ('the whole conversation') before the two output-shaping facts. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the description covers scope, ordering, and text extraction. What remains missing is the routing decision against sibling tools (read_mail, search_mail) and what happens on truncation, which matters for a tool whose output is deliberately clipped.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the 25/100 limits and the 1500-char default. The description reinforces the ordering and quote-stripping semantics but adds no new parameter meaning, so the baseline 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 identifies the exact resource returned: the entire conversation that a given message belongs to, distinct in scope from single-message siblings like read_mail or selected_mail. It lacks an explicit verb ('retrieve'/'fetch'), so it reads as a return-value summary rather than an action statement, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'the whole conversation' suggests this is the tool to pick when surrounding context is needed rather than one message. It never states when to prefer this over read_mail, nor any prerequisite that the id must be a valid message in an accessible mailbox.

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