Get Thread Replies

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only (readOnlyHint=true) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds minor context by mentioning the reverse parameter, but does not describe pagination, rate limits, or the exact structure of the returned replies. Given the annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 succinct: one purpose statement plus a short args list. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, though it could be slightly more structured by including response_format in the args list.

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 GET-replies tool, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It does not clarify whether 'replies' means direct comments on the post or nested replies, nor does it mention pagination or output format behavior beyond the schema's response_format description. Since the output schema is absent and annotations cover safety, a score of 3 reflects partial completeness.

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 covers media_id and reverse with brief explanations, but omits response_format entirely. Since schema description coverage is only 33% (only response_format has a description in the schema), the description should compensate by explaining all parameters. It fails to describe response_format, which is a significant gap, though the schema does include a description for it.

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 that it retrieves replies to a Threads post, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like threads_get_post or threads_get_conversation, though it does not explicitly differentiate or mention alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other similar Threads or Instagram tools, such as threads_get_media_children or meta_get_instagram_comment_replies. No exclusions or conditions are provided, leaving usage context to inference.

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