list_thread_options

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the coupling behavior (thread_size='M4' valid for ISOMetricProfile but not UNC) and the failure-avoidance purpose, and even specifies return shapes. It does not mention performance/rate concerns, but for a pure lookup tool that is minor.

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?

Three short paragraphs: purpose, usage modes, return shapes. Front-loaded with the core purpose, zero filler, every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry everything. It covers purpose, usage, coupling semantics, and return shapes, which is sufficient to invoke correctly. It could be slightly more complete by listing the actual enum values or noting the empty-arg default behavior more sharply, but nothing critical is missing.

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% and the single parameter has no description. The description fully compensates: it explains thread_type is optional, what omitting it does, and what passing it produces. The only gap is that it does not enumerate concrete valid thread_type strings, though it promises the tool returns them.

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?

Names a specific resource (coupled ThreadType/ThreadSize enums on the hole tool) and verb (list valid values). Distinguishes clearly from sibling 'hole' by explaining it is a lookup prerequisite rather than the operation itself.

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?

Explicitly states when to call with no args vs with thread_type, and explicitly routes the agent: 'Use this BEFORE calling hole(threaded=True, ...) to avoid a failed enum-value call.' The when/when-not/alternative condition is fully spelled out.

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