Get Thread

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope detail that replies are returned alongside the root post, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or reply depth, and an output schema covers return shape.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource and free of filler. It is arguably too terse rather than too long — nothing is wasted, but little is added.

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 simple single-parameter read with an output schema and full annotations, this is close to sufficient. Still, it omits reply depth/ordering and whether the ID must be a root post, leaving minor gaps an agent might hit on real calls.

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?

There is a single parameter fully documented at 100% schema coverage, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond it, such as whether post_id may be a reply ID rather than a root ID — which the schema hint calls 'root post ID' but the description does not echo or clarify.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('a post and all its replies'), with the scope ('all its replies') indicating how it differs from the sibling get_post. It never names get_post explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no when/when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives such as get_post or get_channel_posts. The agent must infer that this is the tool for whole-conversation retrieval rather than a single post.

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