List T3 threads

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals important behavioral nuances: status values are server-backed, UI-local auto-settle rules are unavailable, open is not synonymous with running, and archive visibility depends on includeArchived. This materially changes how results should be interpreted.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The core search behavior is front-loaded, followed by the most decision-relevant status nuances and the archive-visibility rule. Every sentence earns its place.

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 is highly complete for a read-only list tool, covering search semantics, status behavior, and archive visibility. It omits pagination behavior involving limit and cursor, but the output schema and parameter defaults reduce the risk of incorrect invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the meaning of query (case-insensitive substring), status (server-backed enum values), includeArchived (visibility control), and projectId (filtering by project). It does not explain limit or cursor, though these are conventional pagination fields inferable from 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('threads') and specifies the search dimensions: project and case-insensitive title, branch, or ID substring. It clearly differentiates the list operation from sibling tools like t3_thread_get or t3_thread_archive.

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 gives practical guidance for when to rely on status filters and how includeArchived behaves when no status is supplied. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives, but the semantics are specific enough that an agent can use the tool correctly.

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