get_thread

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing real behavioral traits: parent links are only known 'unless the page proves them,' results are 'partial, not a full archive,' and include_images caps at five photos/video posters with no server-side LLM or video transcription. These are exactly the operational caveats an agent needs.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by return caveats, the include_images behavior, and a usage hint. All four sentences carry information, though the include_images sentence is dense and could be split for readability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, yet the description still signals partial results and unknown parent links. The remaining gap is the undocumented limit and account parameters for a four-parameter read 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 description coverage is 0% across 4 params, so the description must compensate. It explains include_images thoroughly (max five images, source mappings, no transcription) and implies tweet_url, but limit and account are left entirely uninterpreted.

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 tightly scoped resource: 'Read bounded visible conversation context around one exact X post.' The scoping words 'bounded visible' and 'around one exact X post' distinguish this from single-post reads like get_tweet and from DM-style get_conversation without needing to name them.

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?

It gives explicit context for use: 'Read this before composing contextual replies or reply threads.' That tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, but it never names alternatives (get_tweet, search_tweets, continue_thread) or states when NOT to use it.

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