truth_get_thread

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds that an authorized token is required, which is a behavioral prerequisite not covered by annotations. However, it does not clarify what 'context' means or any additional behavior, so it provides limited extra 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 two short sentences, each with clear value: the action and the auth requirement. No filler or 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?

Given the simple read-only tool with one parameter, output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the core purpose and adds the auth constraint. However, the phrase 'required for context' is somewhat ambiguous, and no mention of the thread structure or edge cases is made, leaving minor gaps. Overall it is adequate.

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 one parameter (status_id) with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions 'a post' without naming or explaining the parameter, leaving the agent to infer that status_id identifies the target post. This does not adequately compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('a post and its ancestors/descendants'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like truth_get_status which likely fetches only a single status. It precisely names the thread scope.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the phrase 'ancestors/descendants' implies thread retrieval, providing some implicit guidance. No explicit exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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