Bus Thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool returns an ordered conversation with speaker, content, and timing, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, mention permissions, or describe edge cases like empty or missing threads.

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 compact sentence with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the colon efficiently introduces the expected output dimensions.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description and schema together cover the essential invocation details: what the tool does and what input to provide. The main missing piece is guidance on when to choose this tool over bus_read, but that gap is more about usage differentiation than invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter thread_id is documented with an example. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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 states a concrete action ('Replay a conversation in order') and specifies what the result contains: who said what, when. It clearly identifies the tool's purpose but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling bus_read, which may also return messages.

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 given about when to use bus_thread versus siblings like bus_read or bus_inbox. The intended use is implied by the phrase 'conversation in order,' but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned.

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