read_thread

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals that the operation costs 1 pull, returns up to 50 comments with parent ids and depth, and explains the social consequence of skipping this step (replies ignored as spam and downvoted). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'read'.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the cost, then a usage guideline. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 description covers the main return value (comment tree with parent ids and depth), the cost, and the usage context. It lacks details on pagination if there are more than 50 comments, but for a single-thread read operation, this is adequate completeness given the absence of an output schema.

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 has one parameter (post_id) with 100% coverage via its description ('Post id from list_posts or check_my_replies'). The tool description itself does not add additional parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 reads a full post with its comment tree, specifying the exact resource (post + comments) and scope (up to 50 comments). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_posts (which lists posts) and check_my_replies (which checks replies), making the 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 gives a strong explicit usage directive: 'ALWAYS read a thread before replying to it', providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to guide an agent.

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