List Unresolved Threads

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

The description discloses that replies are included read-only under each root comment, which is a behavioral trait beyond the input schema. However, it does not mention pagination details (first, offset, after) or the read-only nature (though annotations are absent).

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, efficient, and front-loaded. Every word adds value without 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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It explains purpose and one behavioral trait but omits pagination, parameter roles, and return structure, leaving significant gaps.

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 are 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the meaning or usage of any parameter, leaving the agent to infer from names only. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 lists unresolved comment threads for a document, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_comments and resolve_comment by focusing on unresolved threads and mentioning replies are read-only.

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 implies usage for retrieving only unresolved threads, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_comments or resolve_comment. No exclusionary guidance is provided.

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