pplx_get_thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'FREE — zero quota cost' and states it returns data, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description is adequate but lacks completeness regarding behavioral context.

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 structured with clear sections: tool purpose, cost, output, slug source, and a resume pattern. Every sentence adds value, though the resume pattern could be more concise. Overall, it balances completeness with 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary context: what it does, how to get the slug, and a usage pattern. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the description still mentions key return elements (Q&A turns, sources, related queries).

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 input schema provides no description for the slug parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining the slug's purpose, how to obtain it from other tools, and its format (UUID/slug). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare 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 retrieves the full conversation history for a Perplexity thread, specifying verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full conversation history'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by detailing the output content (Q&A turns, sources, related queries) and providing a usage pattern to obtain the slug.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool, including how to obtain the slug from pplx_list_threads or previous query footers. It includes a step-by-step RESUME PATTERN for continuing past conversations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for different needs.

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