get_thread

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation via the verb 'Read' and explains the crucial distinction between global thread ID and UI number to prevent misuse. This gives the agent the necessary behavioral context without ambiguity.

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 efficient and well-organized: it opens with the core purpose, follows with usage context and an alternative, then defines the argument. Every sentence carries value, with no redundancy or excessive length.

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?

The tool has a simple interface (one parameter), an output schema, and clear context. The description covers purpose, when to use, alternative, and parameter semantics. Given the output schema exists, return values need not be described. This is complete for a read operation.

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 schema only defines thread_id as an integer with no description. The description's Args section fully compensates by explaining that it is a large number from list_threads/search_threads, not the UI #number. This adds essential 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 begins with 'Read a thread's full content, comments, and answers,' which clearly specifies the verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_course_thread by clarifying the ID type, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when you have a thread ID (a large number like 2785693) from list_threads or search_threads results.' It also provides an alternative: 'For looking up a thread by its UI number (e.g. #42), use get_course_thread instead.' This is clear guidance with a named alternative.

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