fetch_discussion_thread

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

It discloses experimental status, a 50-reply cap, a 20,000-character post cap, truncation flags, and the fact that Steam markers are not proof of employment. It also warns that status/reason/pagination should be checked for blocked or partial evidence—far beyond what the annotations already state.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are information-dense. It is longer than minimal because of important caveats about markers, verification, and pagination, but each sentence earns its place; a few could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return fields, and it does: identifier, title, opener, up to 50 replies, text caps, links, markers, timestamps, deleted status, and truncation flags. Pagination semantics and failure/partial-evidence checks are also covered, making the tool safely invocable.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that the page parameter defaults to 1 and that a search-match fragment does not select the reply page, plus noting that IDs come from the discussion identifier.

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 names a specific verb ('retrieval') and resource ('one public Steam Community discussion page') and explicitly identifies the required IDs (app, forum, thread). It also draws a boundary against 'an arbitrary URL', which helps distinguish it from search_app_discussions even without naming the sibling.

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 clear context: the tool requires app/forum/thread IDs, defaults to page 1, and requires manual pagination. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when to avoid this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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