get_thread

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully mentions that reconstruction relies on Message-ID / References headers and is scoped to a given folder, but it does not disclose assumptions such as what happens when headers are missing or whether messages outside the folder are excluded.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action, explains the mechanism, and scopes the operation. Every word contributes meaning with no 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 read-oriented thread reconstruction tool with an output schema present, the description provides the core functional context an agent needs: what is retrieved, how, and within what scope. Some additional caveats about header-based threading limitations would improve it, but it is not critically incomplete.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It hints at 'an email' (likely the uid) and 'within the given folder' (likely mailbox), but it never explicitly names or explains uid, account, or mailbox semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reconstruct') and resource ('conversation thread around an email'), and distinguishes itself clearly from siblings like get_email or list_emails. The mechanism (Message-ID / References headers) adds precision about what the tool actually does.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need the thread around an email rather than the email itself. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name any alternative tools, leaving some routing to inference.

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