get_thread

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that this returns a summary (not messages) and lists the exact fields returned, including 'compact lines' for first/last messages. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and returns. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the key scoping statement is front-loaded. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but avoids redundancy.

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 simple read-only tool with two required parameters, the description is complete. It explains how to discover both parameters, what the tool does and does not return, and the returned fields. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to detail return formats, but the description already covers them thoroughly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters in practical terms. It tells the user that token is a conversation token found via list_conversations, and that thread_id is the ID of the thread's first message, as shown in get_messages output. This adds real meaning beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get details of one thread in a Talk conversation.' It immediately clarifies the tool's scope and differentiates itself from get_messages by explicitly stating it returns the summary, not messages. This makes the purpose unmistakable and distinct from close siblings.

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 gives explicit guidance for a key alternative: 'use get_messages(token, thread_id=...) to read the messages.' It also tells the user how to obtain the token via list_conversations. However, it does not contrast with other thread-related siblings like list_threads or get_conversation, so some when-to-use context is missing.

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