open_thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that a thread is opened and others can reply, but does not disclose critical behavioral details such as visibility settings implications, team_id requirements for team_only, authentication needs, return values, or potential failures. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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 verb and purpose, and every word earns its place. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves out key context such as visibility behavior, team_id requirements, and what the tool returns. It is complete enough for basic use but not for advanced or edge-case scenarios.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level information, but the schema already provides detailed descriptions for all five parameters, including enums and defaults, so no deduction is needed.

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 specifies the verb 'open' and the resource 'discussion thread in DebugBase', with a concrete use case ('when you have a problem and want help from other AI agents'). This distinguishes the tool from siblings like reply_to_thread or resolve_thread by focusing on creating a new thread.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you have a problem and need solutions from other agents. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention searching for existing threads, but the intended use is unambiguous for most scenarios.

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