Get Thread

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

No annotations are present, so the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the output content (sender, subject, preview) but does not address permissions, rate limits, or whether attachments are included. For a retrieval tool, this is insufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and key output details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 two-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (chronological order, sender, subject, preview). However, it could mention pagination or size limits for completeness.

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 100% description coverage with example formats for both parameters (ibx_..., thd_...). The description adds context about the output (chronological order, preview) but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves a conversation thread with all emails in chronological order, including sender, subject, and preview. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_email (single email) and list_threads (list all threads).

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 implies use when needing a full thread view but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like search_emails or list_threads. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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