Read a conversation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that Mastodon returns two flat lists and this tool rebuilds the nested tree, clarifying why this tool exists. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the result, then the rationale. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a simple read operation with annotations covering safety, the description adequately explains the returned structure (the nested tree) and the purpose. It lacks pagination or error handling details, but those are not essential for correct invocation given the tool's simplicity.

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%, with both id and account fully described in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 states a specific verb+resource ('A status together with everything above and below it, nested into the real reply tree') and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_status (single status) and get_conversations (list of conversations). It also adds a concrete use case ('Read this before replying'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit contextual guidance: 'Read this before replying, so the reply lands with context.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity for agents comparing it with get_status or get_conversations.

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