cleanup_threads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auto-archiving behavior (a destructive action), but it does not clarify whether the triage grouping is read-only or also modifies thread statuses. The term 'resolve' is ambiguous, leaving some behavioral traits unclear.

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 three sentences with minimal waste. It is front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds value. Slightly more structure could improve clarity, but overall it is efficient.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what is returned. It mentions grouping with vitality scores but does not specify the output format, error conditions, or prerequisites. This is a significant gap for effective use.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description only repeats the auto_archive behavior, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'triage' and resource 'open threads', clearly stating it groups threads by lifecycle health and offers auto-archive. It distinguishes from siblings like list_threads (just listing) and resolve_thread (individual resolution) by focusing on bulk lifecycle management.

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 implies usage for cleaning up stale threads and mentions auto-archiving after 30+ days, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives. Guidance is present but lacks exclusions or comparison to sibling tools.

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