conversations_replies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that the tool is read-only, paginated, or any other traits beyond retrieving a thread. The input schema hints at pagination via 'cursor' and 'limit', but the description does not acknowledge this.

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 a single 5-word sentence, which is too terse. While concise, it omits important details that would help the agent without adding verbosity. It could be expanded to include at least one additional sentence clarifying scope or pagination.

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 has 9 parameters including pagination and required fields, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the relationship to sibling tools like 'conversations_history' or mention that it retrieves replies to a specific parent message. An output schema exists, but the description still lacks essential context.

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 all parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning or context for parameters like 'channel', 'ts', 'cursor', etc. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'thread of messages', indicating its purpose. However, among sibling tools like 'conversations_history' which also retrieves messages, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself beyond mentioning 'thread', which is implicit.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'conversations_history' or other thread-related tools. It does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer context.

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