razz-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to specify pagination behavior, response format, error handling for invalid message IDs, or confirmation that this is a read-only operation. It only states the basic action without behavioral nuances.

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 at only five words with zero redundancy. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action and scope. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, this extreme brevity borders on underspecification rather than optimal information density.

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 single-parameter read operation with complete input schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, gaps remain due to missing output schema documentation, lack of annotation hints (readOnly/destructive), and no differentiation from similar message-reading siblings, leaving the agent uncertain about return format and specific scope limitations.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the messageId parameter ('The parent message ID to load thread for'), establishing a baseline score of 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, syntax details, or examples beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action (read) and resource (replies in a message thread), distinguishing it from sibling tools like razz_read_messages or razz_read_dm_history through the specific term 'thread'. However, it doesn't explicitly clarify when to use this versus razz_read_messages for general channel messages.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like razz_read_messages, nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring a valid parent message ID from a threaded conversation. The term 'thread' implies usage context but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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