history_get_thread

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Read' and provides a caution about full mode, but doesn't explain return format, pagination, side effects, or the implications of different modes. The full-mode warning adds some context, but it's not sufficient to understand the tool's behavior.

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 concise with two short sentences, front-loading the purpose and providing a conditional usage note. It has no filler or irrelevant content. While it's overly brief, the structure is effective for the limited information it conveys.

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 tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the modes, query behavior, character limits, or include_tools flag, and gives no indication of the return value. The single usage condition about full mode is insufficient for an AI agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and explain parameters. It only mentions 'Full mode' indirectly, and completely fails to explain thread_id, query, max_chars, include_tools, or the meaning of 'summary' and 'relevant' modes. This is a critical gap for a tool with five parameters.

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 selected history thread, using the specific verb 'Read' and the resource 'history thread'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting this is done 'after identifying it via recent context or search', positioning it as a targeted retrieval step. The mention of 'Full mode' adds a specific behavioral nuance that clarifies the purpose.

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 implicitly guides when to use this tool: after identifying a thread via recent context or search, which aligns with sibling tools like history_get_recent_context and history_search. It also provides a clear conditional for using 'full' mode. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it loses a point for not being fully explicit.

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