bsky_get_post_thread

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation ('取得します'), implying it's read-only, but doesn't confirm this explicitly. It mentions getting a 'thread (reply tree)' which suggests hierarchical data, but doesn't describe pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid URIs. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or redundancy. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by specifying it's for Bluesky/AT Protocol (context implied by 'bsky' prefix but not in description text). The structure is appropriate for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which will define the return structure), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a read operation with 3 parameters (one required, two with defaults) and no annotations, the description should provide more context about parameter usage, authentication needs, and error conditions. The current description is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about important operational details.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions '特定投稿' (specific post) which loosely relates to the 'uri' parameter, but doesn't explain what format the URI should be, what 'depth' controls (default 6 but meaning unclear), or what 'acting_handle' does (possibly for authentication or perspective). With 3 undocumented parameters, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the tool name.

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 the verb ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and resource ('特定投稿のスレッド（返信ツリー）' - specific post's thread/reply tree), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like bsky_get_timeline or bsky_get_author_feed by focusing on thread structure rather than chronological feeds. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with bsky_get_profile or bsky_get_lists, which are also read operations but for different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer bsky_get_post_thread over bsky_get_author_feed (which might show replies) or bsky_search_posts (which might find related content). There's no discussion of prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid post URI) or performance considerations. The only implied usage is when you want a thread structure, but this is minimal guidance.

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