Read a message thread

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about ordering and included fields (senders, timestamps, attachments). However, the mention of 'any attachments' is ambiguous given that include_attachments defaults to false, which could mislead about default behavior. It does not describe pagination or return format, but that is secondary for a read-only fetch.

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 efficiently conveys the core function, output contents, and ordering. No wasted words, and it provides a clear mental model of the return value.

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 description covers the basic purpose and output, but there are gaps: it does not clarify the role of include_attachments in the output, nor does it mention any limits or structure (though no output schema exists). For a simple read-only thread fetch, this is adequate but not complete enough to fully anticipate behavior without further inference.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. It references attachments but not how include_attachments controls them. The schema already explains conversation_id and include_attachments adequately.

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 ('get') and resource ('conversation'), and specifies the scope: 'Every message in one thread, in order, with senders, timestamps and any attachments.' This distinguishes it from siblings like list_conversations (which lists threads) and get_post (which likely gets a single message).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The schema mentions 'Thread id from list_conversations', which implies a prerequisite, but the description itself does not state when to choose this tool or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative names are given.

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