threads_for_file

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation is a substring match and returns thread summaries, implying a read-only search. However, it does not explicitly state safety, authorization needs, or any potential side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Two succinct sentences: first presents purpose with an example, second explains the matching method and output. No extraneous information; every word adds value.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers what the tool does, how it matches, and what it returns. It could elaborate on scope (e.g., all past threads or only indexed ones), but the mention of 'indexed file references' provides sufficient context.

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% with a single parameter 'path' that already includes an example. Description adds no new semantic info beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 applies because schema fully describes the parameter.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'find', resource 'past threads', and mechanism 'substring match over indexed file references'. Distinguishes from siblings like search_threads by focusing on file path mentions.

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?

Implies use when wanting threads related to a specific file path. Does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear and intuitive for the targeted use case.

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