get_thread

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Description adds that it returns chronological order and includes the root post, which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions, but it does not disclose any limits (e.g., pagination) or error conditions. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate as it adds some value but not extensive behavioral detail.

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?

Description is concise with three sentences, zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by useful return details, and finally a clear usage note. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is scannable for an agent.

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 tool with one fully documented parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It states what it returns (root post and replies in order) and hints at usage. No missing information that would prevent an agent from calling it correctly. The output schema handles return value details, so no 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?

The schema already documents post_id with a clear description including an example. Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully explains the parameter. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter format or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct as the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves all messages in a thread, including root post and replies in chronological order. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_channel_messages or search_messages, which focus on channels or search results. The verb 'get' plus resource 'thread' is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Description explicitly mentions using this tool to read full conversation context before replying, which provides clear context for when it should be used. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer when to choose it over siblings. Lacks explicit exclusions, but the guidance is adequate for a simple read tool.

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