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 explains the threading algorithm difference for imap: IDs vs normalized subject grouping, states the return shape, and implies a read-only operation through 'get' and 'Returns'. It does not discuss edge cases like empty threads or pagination, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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 compact and well-organized into usage, return, and exclusion sections. Every sentence provides actionable guidance without redundant restating of the tool name or schema.

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 read-oriented conversation-retrieval tool, the description covers when to use it, how it behaves with different id formats, what it returns, and which sibling tools to use instead. Combined with a 100%-covered schema and an output schema, nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a clear definition. The description adds meaningful context for the id parameter by explaining how imap: IDs trigger References/Message-ID threading while other IDs use normalized subject grouping, which is valuable beyond the raw schema.

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 retrieves the whole conversation for a given message id, ordered oldest-first. It explicitly contrasts with get-message and search-messages, making the tool's scope easy to distinguish from siblings.

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 gives an explicit 'Use when' condition (have one message id, want its conversation) and an explicit 'Do not use when' condition with named alternatives (get-message for single messages, search-messages for arbitrary criteria). This leaves little ambiguity about when to select this tool.

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