Get post replies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which describe the tool's safety and idempotency. The description adds 'Get the replies' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, or rate limits. Given the annotations, the description offers minimal extra value.

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 with no extraneous information. It is highly efficient.

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?

The tool has a low complexity and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the two identification methods adequately. However, it omits mention of the `limit` parameter's effect on the number of replies returned, which is a minor gap.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description clarifies that `url` or `handle`+`code` are alternative ways to specify the post, which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not discuss the `limit` parameter, which is fully described in the schema.

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 action ('Get the replies') and the resource ('a Threads post'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_thread' and 'get_user_threads' by specifying it's for replies. The alternative identification methods are explicitly listed.

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 clear instructions on how to specify the post ('Provide the post `url`, or `handle` + `code`'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the differentiation implicit.

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