list_threads

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is transparent. However, the description itself adds no behavioral details (e.g., no mention of sorting, pagination, or what a 'thread' entails). Since the annotation covers the key safety aspect, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words or extraneous information. It follows a clear 'verb + resource' structure, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool is simple, but the description omits critical context: parameter semantics, usage scenarios, output format (since there is no output schema), and any edge cases. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 only parameter, projectId, has no description in the schema, and the tool description does not explain its meaning or optionality. With 0% schema description coverage and no textual clarification, the agent has no semantic understanding of this parameter.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('Freebuff Desktop threads'), making the primary purpose unambiguous. However, it lacks any context about what 'Freebuff Desktop' refers to or whether threads are scoped to a project, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_thread or get_thread_messages. No prerequisites, expected input conditions, or typical scenarios are mentioned, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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