List T3 threads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses sort order ('most recently updated first'), filters (project, attention, archived), and row content (attention state), which is meaningful behavioral context for a list operation.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, with no redundant content.

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 lacks a complete picture of returned rows: it mentions attention state but not other likely fields like thread ID, title, project, or timestamp. Without an output schema, this gap limits an agent's ability to predict the tool's output fully.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning to the 'attention' parameter by explaining that the attention state indicates 'what, if anything, it needs from the human,' which deepens understanding of the enum values beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 'List agent threads in T3 Code, most recently updated first' with a specific verb ('List'), resource ('agent threads'), scope ('T3 Code'), and sort order, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_thread or search_threads.

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?

It implies usage for checking threads by attention state ('Each row includes the thread's attention state — what, if anything, it needs from the human'), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_threads or pending_actions.

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