get_thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details the response contents and explains the attachments array and how to retrieve files via get_attachment_content or get_attachment_download_url, which is valuable behavioral context beyond a simple 'get details'.

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 two sentences: the first succinctly states the purpose and scope, the second adds crucial detail about attachments without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, and key information is front-loaded.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the returned sections and attachment handling. It lacks details on response structure or error conditions, but is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's output.

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 only parameter, threadId, is already fully described in the schema with 'The ID of the thread to retrieve'. The description adds no additional meaning or format constraints beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'full details of a specific thread' and enumerates the included sections: basic info, customer, labels, custom fields, and timeline entries. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_thread_by_ref and list_threads.

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 implies use for fetching full thread details by ID, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like get_thread_by_ref or list_threads. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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