bus_thread

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (root message + replies), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read permissions, whether historical or deleted replies are included, ordering, depth limits, pagination for long threads, or behavior when the id does not exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the parenthetical scope note earns its place by defining what is returned.

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?

For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the shape of the result. However, with zero schema documentation on the id parameter and no annotations, the definition leaves the agent guessing about id semantics and error behavior.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter is bare `id: number`. The description does not clarify whether the id is the root message id, any message id within the thread, or a thread id — a distinction that materially changes the call. This is the main gap for a one-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read a message thread") and parenthetically defines the scope as the root message plus its replies, which distinguishes it from bus_inbox and bus_search. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from the verb alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. needing a thread/message id obtained from bus_inbox or bus_search first), and no statement about what to do when the id is unknown or the thread is empty. Usage is only implied by the verb "Read".

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