discord_list_threads

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

The readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations already declare this as a safe, externally-scoped read. The description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that results differ by mode, but says nothing about pagination, limits, or which thread types (private/archived-private) are excluded.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action (list active threads) and the conditional variant second. No filler, nothing to trim.

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 two-optional-param read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, both usage branches are explained. Only pagination/result-size behavior is unaddressed, which is minor.

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%, and the schema already documents channel_id as the archived-threads selector, so the description mostly mirrors that. It reinforces the mode switch but adds no format, ordering, or default details beyond the schema.

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 (list) and resource (threads) and clearly separates two modes: active threads server-wide vs. archived public threads of one channel. No sibling is named, but no other tool in the list lists threads, so ambiguity is low.

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?

Gives a clear context rule: omit channel_id for active threads across the server, supply it for archived public threads in that channel. It does not state exclusions or point to alternative tools (e.g., discord_create_thread, discord_thread_member), so it stops short of a 5.

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