conversations_replies

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It only says 'Set detailed=True for full response', which hints at an output mode but does not explain what 'full response' entails. It omits critical behaviors like pagination, error states, permission requirements, or whether the tool is read-only.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise but omits essential information. It is front-loaded with the primary action, but lacks any structure to explain parameters, usage, or caveats. The brevity sacrifices completeness.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, but presence of output schema), the description is far from complete. It fails to explain pagination, filtering options, or the meaning of the output. The tool's purpose is clear, but operational context is missing.

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 has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions 'detailed' and that it provides a 'full response' when true. No explanations are given for 'channel', 'ts', 'cursor', 'inclusive', 'latest', 'oldest', 'limit', or 'include_all_metadata'. This is nearly useless for an AI agent.

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 'Retrieve a thread of messages', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'conversations_history' (which retrieves channel messages) and 'conversations_info' (channel metadata). The purpose is 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is specifically for threads, nor does it exclude other contexts like regular channel history. There is no comparison to sibling tools like 'conversations_history'.

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