Debug Get Threads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but there is no disclosure of blocking behavior, ordering, completeness/pagination, or the required debug session state. It is adequate for a simple getter but adds little behavioral context.

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?

Single short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every word contributes to scope.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema covering return values, the description states what is returned and the process scope, which is nearly sufficient. It leaves minor gaps around debug-session prerequisites and how it relates to sibling debug tools.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a concern and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameters.

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 gives a specific verb (Get) and resource (all threads) with a clear scope (the debugged process). It is distinct from the neighboring stack-frame and variable debug tools, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.

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 phrase 'in the debugged process' implies the precondition that a debug session must be active, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to debug_get_stack_frames or debug_get_variables.

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