List Threads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is well covered. The description adds useful lifecycle context (that thread_id can be used to continue a conversation or read a report) and implies default filtering, which goes beyond the structured fields. It is not rich enough for a 5 since it doesn't discuss pagination or archival behavior beyond the parameter names.

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 compact sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently connects the output to downstream actions.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, but it still does so briefly. With annotations covering the safety profile and full schema coverage, the definition is nearly complete. A minor gap is the lack of explicit usage boundaries against sibling listers, which prevents a perfect score.

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 the schema already fully documents 'limit' and 'include_archived'. The description adds no extra syntax or format details for these parameters, so it stays at the baseline 3.

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 provides a clear verb+resource: 'List recent DeerFlow threads' and even enumerates the returned fields (id, title, status, timestamps). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like deerflow_run_status or deerflow_get_report, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implied usage by naming follow-up tools (deerflow_chat, deerflow_get_report) and the thread_id role, but it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as deerflow_run_status or deerflow_list_artifacts. The guidance is suggestive rather than explicit.

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