list_active_threads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the tool lists active threads server-wide, but omits authorization needs, pagination behavior, whether inactive or archived threads are excluded, and what the response contains.

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 or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple list endpoint.

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 read-only list tool with one optional schema-documented parameter, the description communicates basic scope adequately. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around pagination, authorization, and the exact shape of returned thread data.

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 coverage is 100%, so the optional guildId parameter and its DISCORD_GUILD_ID default are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or default behavior beyond the phrase 'across the server', so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'List all active threads across the server.' It is distinguishable by name from thread mutation siblings such as create_thread, modify_thread, join_thread, and leave_thread, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with other list-oriented tools or forum post listing.

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 no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not tell the agent when to choose this over create_thread, join_thread, leave_thread, or forum thread listing tools.

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