List Hole Thread Options

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which are not very informative. The description compensates by disclosing the tool's behavior: it returns either {thread_types: [...]} or {thread_type, thread_sizes: [...]}, and it is a discovery/enumeration tool that should be called before hole to avoid failures. It doesn't mention error cases or rate limits, but the return shape and the coupling behavior are well disclosed. A 4 is appropriate because the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the sparse 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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the two calling modes, the third gives the usage context, and the fourth states the return shape. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler. The structure is easy to scan and parse.

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 simple discovery tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the two calling modes, the return shapes, the coupling semantics, and the recommended usage before hole(). The only thing missing is an explicit note about what happens if an invalid thread_type is passed (e.g., error vs empty list), but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the strong usage guidance provided.

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 carries the full burden of explaining the single parameter. It does this well: it explains that thread_type is optional, that omitting it lists thread_type values, and that providing it lists valid thread_size values for that type. It also gives a concrete example of the coupling. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the parameter's type constraints beyond the example, but the schema already declares it as string|null, so the description adds the crucial semantic meaning.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: discover the coupled ThreadType/ThreadSize enums on the hole tool. It specifies the exact resource (hole tool enums) and the two modes of operation (no args lists thread_type values; with thread_type lists valid thread_size values). This distinguishes it from siblings like feature_list or recipe_list, which list different kinds of options.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: BEFORE calling hole(threaded=True, thread_type=..., thread_size=...) to avoid a failed enum-value call. It also explains the two calling patterns and the coupling behavior with a concrete example (M4 valid for ISOMetricProfile but not UNC). This is strong usage guidance that leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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