get_thread

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that it returns all message bodies, which is consistent and mildly additive, but does not disclose pagination, threading logic, or any side effects beyond read-only behavior.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with purpose, no redundant words. Achieves maximum clarity with minimum text.

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 output schema, the description could clarify what 'full conversation thread' means (e.g., message order, attachments). It is adequate but not fully informative for a read operation that returns a complex object.

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?

Description does not mention either parameter. Schema coverage is 50% (only accountId has a description). The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to infer threadId's role from context alone.

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?

Description explicitly states 'fetch a full conversation thread with all message bodies', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_email (single email) and list_emails (no bodies).

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 description implies it's for full threads but does not mention when not to use or provide decision criteria.

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