create_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 the action and starting point. It doesn't disclose what the tool returns, permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens if a thread already exists or parameters are invalid.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, but the extreme brevity leaves out essential information. It earns its place but does not provide enough context for correct invocation.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover prerequisites, return value, or parameter relationships. The simple action is stated, but a complete description would require additional behavioral and parameter details.

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 must explain parameters. It does not mention any of the four parameters (name, channel_id, message_id, auto_archive_duration) or their meaning. The auto_archive_duration default (1440) is unexplained. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's type constraints.

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 uses a specific verb 'create' and resource 'thread', and clarifies the thread is created from an existing message. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_channel' (creates a channel) and 'send_message' (sends a new message).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring a valid message_id), scenarios where a thread is appropriate, or when not to use it. Siblings include many related tools, but no comparative context is provided.

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