read_thread

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the ordering ('oldest first') and that messages are recent, but says nothing about read-only semantics, auth requirements, pagination/truncation behavior, or what happens when the thread is empty.

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 tight sentence with the resource and ordering front-loaded and no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the lone parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving an agent guessing at the meaning of 'limit'. Adequate but with a clear gap for a tool this simple.

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% for the single 'limit' parameter, and the description never explains it — the word 'recent' hints at a window but gives no meaning for default 20 or whether it caps messages returned. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb (Read) plus resource (recent messages) and a precise scope (active mesh's main chat thread), which distinguishes it from the sibling read_channel and search_chat. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling to route against, so it falls short of a 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?

Phrases like 'active mesh's main chat thread' imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when/when-not statement and no reference to post_chat, read_channel, or search_chat as alternatives. Usage is left to inference.

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