list_subscribed_threads

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, it explains the inclusion criteria, sorting order, pagination behavior, and result shape. It also discloses the exclusion of 'never' notification threads, which an agent could not infer from annotations alone. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then args, then return format. No filler or duplicated annotation; the Args/Returns sections are compact and useful.

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 read-only, paginated list tool, it covers selection criteria, sort order, pagination parameters, and response structure (including how to identify the conversation via token). There is no critical gap for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates: limit is documented as a max count with a 1-100 range and default, offset is described as a pagination skip with default. The descriptions add meaning beyond the bare schema fields.

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 first line names a specific verb and resource: 'List the threads the current user follows, across all conversations.' It then defines what 'follows' means, which distinguishes it from related thread tools like list_threads and get_thread. This is specific enough to route an agent.

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 gives clear context about scope (current user, all conversations) and filtering rules (threads with notification level 'never' are left out). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this over list_threads or get_thread, stopping one step short of full when/when-not guidance.

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