Get Single Thread Post

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what the annotations already declare (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It does not disclose the default output format (markdown) or the option to request JSON, nor any rate-limit or pagination specifics. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description's contribution is minimal, but it fails to mention observable behaviors like response format preference.

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 extremely concise (two lines) and front-loads the purpose, but it is under-specified for a complete tool definition. It does not waste words, but it sacrifices necessary context (e.g., usage guidance, output behavior). It is efficient but not adequately informative.

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-only tool, the description is minimally complete: the schema covers response_format, annotations cover safety, and the description gives the essential identifier. However, it omits any mention of the return structure, error cases, or when to prefer this over threads_get_posts. Given that an output schema is absent, the description should provide more detail about what 'details' means, such as contents of a post object or example usage.

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 description clarifies media_id as 'Threads media ID', which is not described in the schema, providing some added meaning. However, it omits any mention of response_format, which the schema already documents with an enum and default. With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but does not fully cover the parameters or explain how they interact.

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 clear verb ('Gets') and resource ('details for a single Threads post') with an identifier ('by ID'). It differentiates from siblings like threads_get_posts (plural) and threads_get_post_insights implicitly, but does not explicitly name alternatives or scope constraints. It is specific enough for an agent to understand its core function, though it could be sharper about what 'details' includes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that threads_get_posts should be used for listing multiple posts, nor any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., needing a media_id from a prior call). The usage context is only implied by the singular/plural distinction in the name.

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