ed_get_thread

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds the scope of the return data (all answers and comments), which is useful. It does not disclose other behaviors like pagination or presence of deleted items, but given strong annotation coverage, the extra context is adequate.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains no filler. Perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 with 2 params and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool returns (complete discussion with all answers and comments). It leverages the schema for parameter details and annotations for safety. It could mention the response_format parameter or potential limits, but it is complete enough for this low-complexity tool.

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 100% for both parameters. thread_id's meaning ('Ed thread ID') and response_format's enum/default are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the complete content of a single Ed discussion, including all answers and comments. It uses a specific resource (single Ed thread) and implies the 'get' action, distinguishing it from siblings like ed_list_threads or ed_search_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?

Usage is implied: this tool is for when you need the full content of one Ed thread. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., using ed_list_threads for just titles). The description does not mention exclusions or comparison with sibling tools.

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