get_thread_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains that the tool merges the post and replies into a single graph, providing some insight into the return shape. However, it does not mention potential edge cases (e.g., no replies), the size of the result, or any rate limits, leaving the behavior only partially transparent.

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, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and includes the scope and merge behavior, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers the essential purpose and indicates the return type (a merged graph). It does not specify behavior for edge cases like empty threads or invalid IDs, but these are minor gaps. Overall, it is complete enough for basic use.

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 fully describes post_id as a UUID of the post, so the description adds no extra parameter meaning. The description only says 'a post' which matches the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 retrieves a V3 argument hypergraph for a post and all its replies, merged into a single graph. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like get_argument_graph (which likely returns a single graph) and get_post or get_replies (which return separate pieces).

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 usage when a full merged thread graph is needed, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_argument_graph. It also provides no exclusions or prerequisites, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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