get_thread_messages

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions limit range and order options but does not disclose whether it's read-only, auth requirements, or pagination behavior. However, the defaults and range information provide some transparency.

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 relatively concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details. It could be slightly tighter (e.g., 'Get all messages' vs 'Get messages' with limit explained) but overall well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the output schema exists (not shown), return values are covered. However, the phrase 'Get all messages' conflicts with the limit parameter suggesting partial retrieval. No comparison to sibling tools or error scenarios mentioned, leaving some context gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains each parameter: thread_id (source), limit (range 1-1000, default 50), order (asc/desc, default asc). This adds significant meaning beyond the 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 clearly states that the tool retrieves all messages in an email thread and specifies the returned data (sender, content, timestamps). This is specific and distinguishable from siblings like get_thread_metadata.

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 indicates where to get the thread_id (from list_threads) but does not explicitly clarify when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_threads or get_thread_metadata. It lacks when-not or exclusion guidance.

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