list_threads

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses result ordering, the default filter, the aggregate counts returned, and an untrusted-content safety notice about school-sourced text. It omits permission/auth requirements and any pagination or truncation behavior behind the limit.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope in one sentence, with the injection warning kept separate and short. Every sentence carries information, though the safety boilerplate is somewhat generic.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden; it covers ordering, default filtering, counts returned, and content-trust handling. Only pagination/limit semantics and any permission requirements remain unaddressed.

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 carry parameter meaning; it partially does by explaining that the default is unseen-only, which maps loosely to only_pending (though the wording "unseen" vs. "pending" is not an exact match). The limit parameter is never mentioned at all.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ("List threads") plus the ordering ("most recent first") and returned summary fields ("item and unseen counts"). It doesn't differentiate itself from the similarly-named sibling list_pending, so an agent must infer which listing tool to reach for.

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 clause "by default only threads with unseen items" implies the default scoping and hints that a broader listing exists, but no sibling tool (list_pending, search, get_thread_context) is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use condition is given.

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