get_thread

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

The readOnlyHint annotation only covers safety. The description adds rich behavioral context: the thread-reconstruction strategy, All Mail search scope, fallback to the containing folder, chronological ordering, and the 1-100 limit range.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded, and the Args list is compact and directly useful. Every sentence adds operational detail without 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. With annotations covering read-only safety and the description covering search scope, fallback, ordering, and parameter constraints, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate fully. It documents all three parameters: message_id as any message in the thread, folder as a fallback if All Mail is absent, and limit as a 1-100 maximum.

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: reconstructs a conversation/thread around a message. It also names the mechanism (References/In-Reply-To) and search scope (All Mail), making it distinguishable from siblings like read_email and search_emails.

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?

Clear context: call it with a message_id from any message in the thread to retrieve the full conversation. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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