get_thread_opinions

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 does reveal the default limit and platform choices, but it is internally inconsistent: 'Get all opinions/comments' conflicts with 'max comments to return (default 20)'. It also omits pagination, ordering, error behavior, and authentication needs.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean parameter list. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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?

The description covers the core parameters and basic purpose adequately, and an output schema exists to explain return values. However, the 'all vs. limit' ambiguity and lack of usage routing or behavior notes leave the agent with meaningful gaps about how to invoke it correctly in a workflow.

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, and it does. It provides allowed platform values, defines thread_id as 'the thread/post ID on that platform', and explains limit semantics with a default. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get all opinions/comments from a specific thread.' It clearly indicates the tool fetches thread comments rather than searching, which partially distinguishes it from the search_opinions siblings, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: the tool is for when you have a known platform and thread_id and want its comments. It does not state when to avoid this tool or when to prefer search_opinions or search_opinions_perspective, leaving some inference to the agent.

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