list_threads

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state pagination behavior and implies a read-only listing operation, but it does not mention ordering, default page size behavior, or any side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: the action, the resource, the scope, and the pagination behavior.

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 simple paged listing tool with fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core invocation needs. It could be slightly stronger with explicit mention of read-only behavior or ordering, but nothing critical is missing for correct calling.

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 coverage is 100%, with both limit and cursor already documented in the schema. The description only says 'pagination,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 ('List'), a specific resource ('threads in channel'), and a distinctive feature ('pagination'). It clearly separates this tool from siblings like start_thread, update_thread, and read_thread, and from list_members which targets a different resource.

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 the tool is for retrieving threads in a channel, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over siblings such as read_thread or list_members. There are no stated exclusions, conditions, or alternative routing.

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