get_thread

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description aligns with them by saying 'Read...'. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, including the bounded nature of messages, pagination via beforeCursor, and visibility into provider errors and requests for human attention. No contradiction exists.

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 four short sentences, front-loaded with the core read purpose and with no filler or redundant phrases. Each sentence earns its place by adding either scope, sibling routing, pagination, or input-response context.

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 operation and the presence of readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description covers the main purpose, pagination, and sibling routing. However, it lacks explanation of required parameters like environmentId and threadId, and its reference to 'T3' is unexplained, leaving some gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the four parameters. It mentions beforeCursor and loosely implies a limit with 'bounded recent messages', but it does not describe threadId, environmentId, or turnLimit, leaving required identifiers and the limit parameter underspecified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read bounded recent messages, activity, current status, provider errors and requests for human attention.' This clearly defines what the tool returns and distinguishes it from list_threads, which is explicitly named for discovering thread IDs.

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 gives actionable guidance: 'Discover thread IDs with list_threads' names the alternative for a related task, and 'Older turns can be paginated using beforeCursor' explains how to handle pagination. It stops short of explicit exclusions for sibling tools like send_message or interrupt_thread, so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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