get_thread

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

No annotations exist to declare safety or side effects. The description implies a read operation ('get') but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive or idempotent. For a tool that returns a thread, the description should disclose any potential impact on data or whether it requires specific permissions.

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 only one sentence, which is overly brief for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema. While it is concise, it sacrifices clarity and completeness. A slightly longer description would improve usability without adding unnecessary verbosity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description fails to provide adequate context. It does not explain the return format, how 'decoded' relates to message encoding, or the effect of optional parameters like include_body. The tool may be used in complex sequences, but the description offers no guidance.

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 description provides no information about parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent is left to infer from parameter names alone (thread_id, include_body, account, password). The description does not clarify the role of include_body, account, or password, leaving the agent uncertain about how to use them correctly.

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 'Get a full thread with every message decoded' clearly indicates the tool retrieves a complete thread with decoded message content. It distinguishes from siblings like get_message (single message) and search_threads (search instead of retrieval). However, the term 'decoded' is somewhat ambiguous without further context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like get_message and search_threads exist, but the description does not help an agent decide which to invoke. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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