get_thread

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by stating the output ordering ('in order') and the dependency on get_message, offering behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every part adds meaning, balancing brevity with key context.

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?

The tool is simple with an output schema and read-only annotation, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits how 'limit' behaves and contradicts the 'whole conversation' claim, leaving a gap 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It clarifies that thread_id comes from get_message, which is helpful, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter. Worse, the claim of 'whole conversation' conflicts with limit's default of 25, which may truncate 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 uses a specific verb ('Read'), identifies the resource ('whole conversation'), notes ordering ('in order'), and provides a source for the thread_id ('from get_message'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_message.

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?

It clearly states the prerequisite and context: you need a thread id from get_message. This gives a clear 'when to use' signal, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives.

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