get_thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Requires API key' for authentication, which is useful, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or what 'full details' entail (e.g., pagination, data format). For a read operation with no annotations, this is insufficient to fully inform an agent.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. It uses two sentences efficiently: one for the tool's function and one for the authentication requirement. There is no unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage notes.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and authentication need but omits details on return values, error cases, and behavioral traits like rate limits. This leaves some gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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 100% description coverage, with 'thread_id' documented as 'The thread ID'. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond this, such as format examples or validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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's purpose: 'Get full details and message history for a specific thread on the402.ai.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('thread'), and details the content ('conversation between agent and provider, including any price proposals, status updates, and delivery information'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_threads' or 'get_participant', which prevents a score of 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 description provides minimal usage guidance: 'Requires API key' indicates a prerequisite, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_threads' for summaries or 'get_participant' for user details). No explicit context or exclusions are mentioned, leaving gaps in when this tool is appropriate.

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