List threads

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail about active vs. archived threads and the channel requirement for archived ones. It explains the server/channel scoping without contradicting annotations.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and no filler. Every clause adds information about scope or archived behavior, making it compact and efficient.

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 three optional parameters and a read-only hint, the description covers the core usage scenario well. It doesn't describe return format or pagination, but the absence of an output schema makes that a minor gap for a list operation.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond restating the include_archived-channel relationship. The added value is minimal, but it reinforces the constraint that archived threads require a channel.

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 states a clear action with specific scope: 'Active threads across the server or one channel.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_thread or list_thread_members by focusing on listing threads at server/channel level, and the archived-thread nuance adds precision.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: for active threads across a server or channel, and for archived threads when include_archived is set with a channel. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is unambiguous.

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