roku_debug_threads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does convey that this is a read-only listing operation and notes that both stopped and running threads are included, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether an active debug session is required, what happens when no threads are available, or any session prerequisites.

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 two concise sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every sentence adds relevant information: what is listed, the thread states covered, and the output fields shown.

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 tool with an output schema available, the description is largely complete: it states the scope and the displayed fields. It could be slightly stronger by mentioning that this operates within an active debugger session, but that is reasonably implied by the tool name and sibling context.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on behavior and output rather than parameter details, and nothing is missing in terms of parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('all debugger threads'), with an explicit scope of stopped or running threads. It also states the returned information (thread state, current function, file, line number), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling debugger 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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like roku_debug_stacktrace or roku_debug_variables. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when thread listing is appropriate.

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