crm_list_threads

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds useful scope context: it lists 'recent' threads and explicitly excludes the authoritative company pipeline, which helps set expectations beyond the annotations. It does not, however, discuss pagination or default ordering.

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?

A single compact sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed by a meaningful scope caveat. There is no filler and every clause adds information.

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?

The description gives the returned content categories (threads, classifications, revisions) and a scope boundary, but omits any explanation of pagination behavior or result ordering for a list tool with two bare pagination parameters and no output schema. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, and the description never mentions the limit or offset parameters. With two undocumented pagination parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving their purpose and behavior inferred from naming alone.

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 ('recent LinkedIn channel threads, classifications and revisions'), making the operation clear. It also distinguishes itself from the 'authoritative company pipeline' scope, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like crm_get_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 phrase 'does not read the authoritative company pipeline' implies a when-not condition, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative is given. An agent must infer that this is for listing threads rather than fetching a single thread via crm_get_thread.

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