Retrieve a thread by ID

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool's read-only nature is already conveyed. The description adds context by listing the specific information returned, which helps the agent anticipate the response contents. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and key return fields without any redundant or filler text. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the responsibility of indicating return content. It lists several key fields (status, inbox, original channel, assignee, contact) which convey the nature of the response; while not exhaustive, it is adequate for a simple get-by-id tool with three documented parameters.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters, including the required conversation_thread_id and optional booleans is_archived and include_ticket_association. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource and scope ('conversation thread by ID') while enumerating the detail fields (status, inbox, original channel, assignee, contact). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like RetrieveConversationThreads (list) and UpdateConversationThread (mutate).

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 clearly implies use when a single thread's details are needed by ID, and the context is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for related tasks like getting message history or updating threads.

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