list_active_threads

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and open-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that results are filtered by the active status and by what the credential can access. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 to the meaning, and the main action is immediately clear.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool, the description covers the essential scope and access filtering, and the annotations cover safety. It does not describe output structure or pagination, but there is no output schema and the resource being listed is clear from the description.

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%, so the description must compensate for documenting the single guild_id parameter. It only indirectly ties guild_id to 'server' and does not explicitly explain the parameter's role, format, or source; the property name and pattern carry most of the meaning.

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 specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('active server threads'), and a clear scope ('accessible to this credential'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like create_thread or list_channels, which target different resources or actions.

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 intended use is implied: enumerate active threads in a guild using guild_id. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as list_channels or search_messages, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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