hex-get-thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not what 'status' values mean, whether the thread is scoped to a project, or any permission/rate-limit constraints. Only the implicit read-only nature of 'Get' is conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but the sparseness reads as under-specification rather than deliberate economy for a tool whose schema and annotations are silent.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description should at minimum explain what 'details and status' returns and what the ID looks like. It leaves all of that to guesswork.

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?

There is one required parameter (threadId) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or its format (UUID, slug, etc.). 'An agent thread' weakly implies the ID identifies the target but adds no usable detail.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('details and status of an agent thread'), which an agent can distinguish from list_threads, create_thread, and get_thread_messages. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to call this versus hex-list-threads, hex-get-thread-messages, hex-continue-thread, or hex-create-thread. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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