get_thread_by_thread_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly indicates a read operation ('Retrieve'), but does not mention pagination behavior (though cursor and page_size parameters exist), ordering, or any constraints. The description is minimal for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. It avoids fluff, but is perhaps too brief given the tool's complexity. Every word is relevant, but could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain pagination, return format, or prerequisites. Sibling tools provide some context, but the description itself lacks completeness for an agent to use the tool reliably.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not clarify parameter relationships or usage constraints, meeting but not exceeding the baseline.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'all messages within a thread of a group chat'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_chat_history (which likely gets full chat history) and get_message_by_message_id (single message). However, it could be more explicit about the scope (all messages in a thread) and does not differentiate from siblings in the description itself.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for retrieving thread messages but does not mention when not to use it or provide comparisons to sibling tools like get_chat_history. The context signals indicate sibling tools exist, but the description lacks usage context.

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