get_thread

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses output format (indented markdown tree, collapsed branches) and a critical data quality caveat about Arctic Shift placeholders. This significantly informs the agent about runtime behavior and data reliability.

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 compact and front-loaded with purpose, then output behavior, then caveat. Each sentence contributes essential information without wordiness.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary use case, return format, and an important limitation. It does not detail every parameter or edge case, but the schema fills the gaps, making it complete enough for a read-only tool.

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 100%, so parameters are already well documented. The description adds value by emphasizing the flexible url_or_id format (any URL or id) and explaining the default output format, which complements rather than repeats 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 explicitly states 'Read a reddit post and its comment tree from any reddit URL or id,' using a specific verb and resource. It also positions itself as 'the primary tool' for pasted links, distinguishing it from siblings like get_posts or get_comments.

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 clearly indicates when to use it ('give it whatever the user pasted') and adds a caveat about when data is unreliable (new posts have placeholder scores). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions for using other tools.

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