Get Thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the return contents (messages, jobs, results), which is meaningful given the absence of an output schema, but 'Get' only weakly implies read-only behavior and nothing is said about permissions, missing-thread errors, or response size.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, and the resource being fetched is front-loaded along with the payload it contains. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned contents, which is the main thing the schema cannot convey. The remaining gap is the total absence of annotation-equivalent detail (safety, error behavior) that a no-annotation tool would ideally mention.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents threadId. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond what is structured, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Get a specific research thread') and enumerates the nested payload (messages, jobs, results), so the agent knows exactly what it receives. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'list_threads', but never names an alternative explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only implied: the required threadId makes clear this is the 'I already have an ID, fetch that one thread' path versus 'list_threads'. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no comparison against siblings like get_results or research_status.

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