get_thread

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the max_body_bytes limit, implying body truncation behavior, but does not explicitly state the tool is read-only or describe what 'all emails' entails (e.g., attachments, metadata). The output schema exists but the description could be more transparent about the operation's safety.

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 highly concise at 6 sentences, front-loading the purpose then listing parameters in a clear Args block. No redundant wording; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 3 parameters (0 required) and no annotations, the description covers the tool's core purpose, identifier options, and a key behavioral constraint (max body bytes). With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. Minor gaps (e.g., error handling) do not significantly hinder usability.

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 explain parameters. It clearly defines email_id as an ID whose thread to fetch, thread_id as a direct ID, and max_body_bytes with default 5000. It implies mutual exclusivity of email_id and thread_id ('Provide either'), but does not explicitly forbid providing both. This adds value beyond the schema's types and defaults.

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 the tool gets all emails in a conversation thread, specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'emails in a conversation thread'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_emails (which likely fetches emails from a folder) by focusing on thread grouping.

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 provides guidance on using either email_id or thread_id to specify the thread, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_emails or query_emails. It lacks when-not-to-use guidance, such as when a thread may be too large or when a simpler email list suffices.

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