List all preserved review threads and replies for one viewable artifact in chronological order, including anchors and open, resolved, or outdated state. This is read-only; use add_comment, reply_to_thread, or set_thread_status to make a change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| documentId | Yes | ID of the artifact containing the target resource. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| threads | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'read-only' statement is redundant, but it adds useful context about the scope ('one viewable artifact') and output details (chronological order, anchors, status). It doesn't cover auth/rate limits, but the annotation covers the primary safety profile.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes only essential usage guidance. No fluff or redundancy.
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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, ordering, states, read-only nature, and mutation alternatives. Nothing critical 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying that the artifact must be viewable and that only 'preserved' threads are listed, which refines the documentId parameter's semantics beyond the schema description.
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 specifies a verb ('List'), a resource ('preserved review threads and replies'), and a scope ('for one viewable artifact'), along with ordering and state details. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_review_inbox, which likely covers multiple artifacts.
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 explicitly states the tool is read-only and names the mutation alternatives (add_comment, reply_to_thread, set_thread_status), providing clear when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'for one viewable artifact' differentiates it from list_review_inbox.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action: comment creation vs. reply, review request vs. completion, thread status vs. comment, document read vs. list. No two tools have overlapping responsibilities, and descriptions clarify precise usage.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_comment, complete_review, create_document, get_document, list_documents, list_review_inbox, list_threads, publish_version, reply_to_thread, request_review, set_thread_status). whoami deviates slightly but is a standard, recognizable exception.
12 tools is well within the optimal 3-15 range and appropriately covers the document/review/thread domain without bloat or excessive abstraction. Each tool serves a clear purpose in the workflow.
Core lifecycle is covered: document creation/reading/versioning, review request/completion/inbox, and thread create/reply/status. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit document deletion or metadata update, but these do not hinder primary review workflows.