list_threads

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

Even with readOnlyHint=true, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: only unarchived threads are returned, results are ordered newest-activity-first, pages are bounded, and 'finished' status means the latest turn completed, not verified task success. This goes well beyond the annotation's safety signal.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: scope and output fields, optional filters, ordering/pagination, a pointer to get_thread, and a status clarification. No filler or repetition.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, it describes the returned fields, ordering, pagination, filtering, and sibling handoff. It does not discuss error/empty-result behavior or explicit parameter names, but the essentials for correct invocation and interpretation are present.

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 compensates by explaining environmentId (one environment), projectId and status as optional filters, and pagination via 'bounded pages' and 'Newest activity first.' It does not expand every status enum value or name limit/offset explicitly, but the main parameter semantics are covered.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Discover unarchived threads on one environment' with the returned fields (IDs, titles, status, flags, timing). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by framing this as the listing/discovery operation, with get_thread pointed to separately for reading messages.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool (discovering threads, with optional project/status filters) and explicitly routes the agent to the sibling get_thread for reading messages. It does not enumerate exclusions for other siblings like interrupt_thread or start_thread, but the primary alternatives are addressed.

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