blackboard_get_discussion_thread

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds specific value by revealing that embedded Blackboard media (images, audio, video, files) are included in embeddedFiles and that supported media also appear as resource_link blocks. This is beyond what the schema conveys. It could mention the default limit behaviors or the hierarchical structure, but the core trait (media inclusion) is disclosed, and 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence gives the core purpose, and the second adds a key behavioral detail (media handling). Information is front-loaded, and every word earns its place. This is a model of conciseness.

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 read tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and one notable output detail (media blocks). It does not explicitly describe the return format's hierarchy (though 'thread' implies it) or mention error conditions, but the schema covers parameter limits and defaults. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is reasonably complete, though a note about the response being a nested structure would push it to a 5.

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% – every parameter has a clear description (e.g., maxDepth, replyLimit, messageLimit, status). The description itself does not add new parameter-specific meaning; it only implicitly references the thread structure that these parameters control. Since the schema already documents each parameter, the description's omission does not harm clarity, but it also does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a resource ('an Ultra discussion as a thread'), and a defined scope (discussion topic, top-level posts, and replies). It also references embedded media, which distinguishes it from other sibling tools like blackboard_list_discussion_messages or blackboard_get_discussion. This makes the tool's function unambiguous without needing to inspect the schema.

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 the use case (retrieve a whole thread) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as blackboard_list_discussion_messages or blackboard_get_discussion. It lacks concrete guidance on when to choose this tool over a flat-list or single-message tool. The context is clear enough for a simple read operation, but it would benefit from explicit 'use this when you need nested replies' language.

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