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 discloses ordering behavior ('in order') but says nothing about side effects, error conditions, rate limits, authentication, or return format. 'Fetch' implies read-only but isn't explicit.

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 with no redundant words. All information is front-loaded and purposeful.

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 fetch tool, the description covers the core action and result scope, but lacks detail on return structure, missing-thread behavior, or pagination. No output schema exists to compensate.

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 schema has one parameter, thread_id, with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name; it doesn't explain the format or constraints of thread_id.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and identifies the resource ('a thread') while also noting the returned scope ('all its messages in order'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_message (single message) and list_threads (list of threads), though it doesn't explicitly name 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?

No explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage—fetching a thread's messages—but lacks any exclusions or mention of sibling tools.

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