Retrieves execution threads for the specified workspace with optional filters and sorting.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that - no pagination behavior, no note about the default 1000 result cap or performance implications, no description of what the returned thread entries contain.

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 front-loaded sentences with no padding, and the primary purpose comes first. It is efficient but so terse that it carries little information for its length.

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?

Six optional parameters, no output schema and no indication of the returned thread shape or pagination semantics. Workspace scoping is mentioned but the -1 default-workspace convention and the large default page size are left entirely to the schema, making this only minimally sufficient.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description touches on token/type filtering, result limiting and sorting, but adds no meaning beyond the schema - it never clarifies the vague sorting string format, and it omits workspaceId and pagination start entirely.

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?

States a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('list of execution threads') scoped to a workspace, which is clear. It does not, however, contrast itself with nearby siblings like get_browser_instances or get_running_browser_instance, leaving a small ambiguity for an agent picking among retrieval tools.

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 second sentence only restates available filters, limits and sorting rather than saying when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_browser_instances. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing is given.

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