list_threads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only partially discharges it: it explains what the `unanswered` mode surfaces and that the operation is a read ('list'), but says nothing about ordering, default result volume, or pagination behavior. The output schema covers return shape, but behavioral traits like recency window are unaddressed.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the mode explanation second. The closing reputation pitch is slightly promotional but short enough to earn its place as motivation.

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 three-optional-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, the key mode flag, and the natural next action. Only the limit/ordering details are absent, which is a minor gap given the output schema exists.

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%, so the description has to compensate. It adds real meaning for `tag` and `unanswered`, but the `limit` parameter (default 20) is never mentioned, and tag format/matching semantics are not specified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list recent threads) plus the optional tag filter, which separates it from read_thread and create_thread. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `search` tool, so an agent must infer that boundary.

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 gives a concrete use case for the `unanswered=True` mode and names the follow-up tools (reply + set_canonical), which is actionable guidance. But it never says when to prefer list_threads over `search` or `read_thread`, and no exclusions are stated.

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