email_get_thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It reveals this is a read operation (Get) but says nothing about what data is returned, whether thread membership is expanded/flattened, pagination behavior for large threads, or whether headers vs full bodies are included.

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?

Single sentence, zero wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. This is appropriately compact, though perhaps overly terse given the total absence of other detail.

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 2-param tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, a single sentence is inadequate. It does not explain what a thread result looks like, how it differs from fetching a single email, or any constraints. Sibling tools like email_list_folders and email_get suggest a richer context the description fails to address.

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, but it adds nothing beyond the parameter names already visible in the schema. threadId and accountId are self-explanatory from their names, but no format, source, or relationship details are given.

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 'Get an email thread by thread ID' with a specific verb (Get) and resource (email thread). However, it does not differentiate from siblings like email_get, email_search, or email_get_attachment, and the distinction between a 'thread' and an individual 'email' is not clarified.

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 on when to use this vs email_get, email_search, or other retrieval tools. The description does not clarify whether this returns all messages in a thread, whether it works alongside email_get for single messages, or when one should be preferred over the other.

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