fetch_thread

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only nature, authentication, rate limits, or error handling. The term 'fetch' implies reading, but this is not explicit.

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 relatively concise, with the main sentence upfront followed by structured Args and Returns. It could be more concise by omitting the docstring-like format, but it is still clear and well-organized.

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 two-parameter input and existence of an output schema, the description covers basic usage. However, it lacks context for when to use this tool over similar ones and does not mention potential limitations or edge cases.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description explains each parameter with examples (channel_id: '채널 ID (예: C0123456789)', thread_ts: '스레드 타임스탬프 (예: 1234567890.123456)'), adding meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool fetches messages from a Slack thread, specifying the action and resource. The sibling fetch_messages and fetch_threads hint at different scopes, but the description does not explicitly differentiate, so not a 5.

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 like fetch_messages or fetch_threads. The description only explains what the tool does, not the appropriate context.

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