get_thread

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that emails are returned 'sorted chronologically,' which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, although the verb 'Get' implies this. The description could be more transparent about side effects or permissions, but for a simple read operation, the disclosed sorting behavior provides partial value.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences that are front-loaded with the main action ('Get all emails in a conversation thread') and supplemented with a key detail ('Returns emails sorted chronologically'). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It states the core functionality, the input basis (message ID), and the return behavior (sorted emails). It does not cover error cases or edge conditions, but for a simple retrieval tool, this is acceptable. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by the return description.

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%, as both parameters (mailbox and messageId) are described in the input schema. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it confirms that messageId is the key for finding the thread, but does not elaborate on default values, formats, or relationships between parameters. With full schema coverage, the 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 what the tool does: 'Get all emails in a conversation thread based on a message ID.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch_emails (which likely retrieves emails from a mailbox) and search_emails (which searches for emails). The mention of 'thread' and 'message ID' adds critical context.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies you need a message ID, but does not state prerequisites, nor does it contrast with fetch_emails or search_emails. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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