history_get_thread

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a caution about 'full' mode requiring explicit user request, which is useful. However, it does not describe return behavior, side effects, or cost implications for other modes (summary/relevant).

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?

Two sentences, direct and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It omits parameter semantics, return value expectations, and any mention of resource costs besides the 'full mode' caution.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only references 'full mode' (one enum value) but does not explain thread_id, query, max_chars, include_tools, or mode differences. This is insufficient for 5 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 verb 'read' and the resource 'history thread', and introduces the prerequisite of identifying the thread via recent context or search. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the reference to 'recent context or search' strongly implies the context.

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 implies a usage flow (identify thread first) and provides a specific constraint for 'full' mode, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools are not named, so guidance is only implicit.

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