get_thread_markdown

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly/idempotent/openWorld), it discloses the call-cost multiplier, a hard refusal condition tied to poll result hiding, and precise truncation semantics — max_chars cuts the END and `truncated: true` means the newest items were dropped. That is real operational context an agent cannot get from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary use case and tightly written with no filler. It is telegraphic to the point of density (backticked fragments, parentheticals), which slightly taxes first-read comprehension, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description still names the return fields (`markdown`, `chars`, `truncated`), covers the failure mode, and explains the truncation contract. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds the crucial exclusivity rule ('pass exactly one') that the schema's flat property list does not enforce, plus the cost impact of thread size. The max_chars explanation largely restates the schema text, keeping it below a 5.

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 specific verb and resource ('read/summarise this thread') and names exactly what it returns: Loomio server-rendered Markdown plus `markdown`, `chars`, `truncated`. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `list_thread_items`, so an agent can choose without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit routing rules: 'pass exactly one' of topic_id/discussion_id/poll_id, and an explicit when-not case — REFUSED while an open poll hides results, use list_thread_items instead. It also gives the cost model (2 calls, +1 per 500 items) which informs the use/don't-use decision.

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