Get thread

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a read operation. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that any post id in the thread works, not just the thread root id. However, it does not describe the return format, ordering, or pagination behavior, which would provide additional transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately includes the key input detail. No filler or redundant wording is present.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description is largely complete: it specifies what is read, what input is needed, and where valid inputs come from. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning what the returned thread contains or how it is ordered, but this is not essential for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds value by specifying the expected 'post:<id>' format and clarifying that any post id in the thread is acceptable, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Any post id in the thread'.

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 reads a full message thread given any post id. It includes the specific 'post:<id>' format, which helps the agent identify valid inputs and distinguishes this tool from the other history and search tools.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use this tool: whenever you have any post id and need the full thread. It also explains that post ids come from other tools' output, which is useful context, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it.

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