read_threaded_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does so reasonably by disclosing the exact payload — including replies and resolved state — which tells the agent this is a non-mutating retrieval that surfaces both resolved and unresolved threads. It does not mention permission requirements or behavior when the workbook has no comments, leaving a small 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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads scope and return fields, the second front-loads the follow-up action. Nothing redundant or buried.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return shape and the next-step integration, which is most of what an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around empty results and whether the whole thread history or only the current state is returned.

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 single parameter workbookId has 100% schema description coverage (including the note that it is optional when one workbook is connected), so the schema already does the work. The description only refers obliquely to 'the workbook' and adds no new parameter meaning.

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 ('Read') and resource ('all threaded comments in the workbook') and enumerates the returned fields (content, author, creation date, resolved state, replies), which distinguishes it from the sibling add_comment and from the Word-oriented read_comments. An agent can tell exactly what it gets back without opening a 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 second sentence gives explicit downstream workflow: use reply_to_comment or resolve_comment with a comment id taken from this output. That is clear context for why and when to call it, but it offers no exclusions (e.g. how it relates to read_comments or what to do if no workbook is connected).

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