list_threads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention safety, permissions, or rate limits. The description only says 'list' and 'shows', which implies read-only, but is not explicit. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 sentences long, with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds context about session carry-over and points to a sibling tool. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly improved by noting read-only nature.

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 compensate by explaining what the response looks like, but it does not. It also does not clarify how the parameters interact (e.g., combining status and include_resolved), how 'recent sessions' is defined, or whether results are paginated. For a list tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is undercomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides for the three parameters (status, project, include_resolved). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 'List open threads across recent sessions' uses a specific verb and resource, and clarifies the scope ('across recent sessions') and nature ('unresolved work items that carry over between sessions'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve_thread, create_thread, and search.

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 names a sibling alternative ('Use resolve_thread to mark threads as done'), providing when-not-to-use guidance. It implicitly suggests this is for viewing open tasks, but lacks comprehensive context about when to prefer this over other listing tools like search or recall.

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