get_thread

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful return-content context by saying the tool returns snippets rather than full bodies, but it does not disclose behavior around max_messages, ordering, or potential absence of results.

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 very short and mostly front-loaded, but the '(unconfigured)' prefix is noise and the sentence lacks a main verb. It earns points for brevity but loses structure and polish.

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 and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves important context unexplained, such as what 'snippets' means, how max_messages affects results, and what the response shape looks like. The pointer to get_message is helpful, but the overall definition is too sparse for an agent to invoke this tool confidently.

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%, yet the description does not explain account, thread_id, or max_messages beyond their property names. 'Thread metadata and snippets' only weakly implies what thread_id and max_messages might mean, so the description adds little value for parameter understanding.

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 states that this tool returns thread metadata and snippets, and explicitly points to get_message for full bodies, which differentiates it from the most relevant sibling. It lacks a clear main verb and includes the odd '(unconfigured)' prefix, so it is clear but not a perfect 5.

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 phrase 'bodies via get_message' tells the agent when to use get_thread versus get_message, providing a clear alternative for the key ambiguity. It does not discuss other siblings or broader conditions, but the main routing decision is well covered.

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